superstition and capt. trade? guest: i'm not sure they supported the exact bill. it passed by seven votes. we did not see that framework for addressing those issues as effective and there were serious economic consequences for the entire nation. there are projects under way. there is one in mississippi for enhanced oil recovery. there are testing sites in terms of sequestration. the challenge will be to integrate the technology to capture and storage together in a plans.

the audience should understand this is not just coal technology. this is across the board on gas plants as well as major industrial sources in terms of carbon dioxide released. host: environmental groups have maps available. this is labeled death and disease from power plants and has the mortality effects from existing power plants her 1000 people and it is concentrating in the older sections of the united states and the midwest. i wanted to go back to the epa ruling. people are concerned about emissions from older plants. decisionthe court's

mean for people concerned about emissions? guest: they have been given direct sideboards from the court on how to do this right. host: the process of cleaning up plants continues. guest: it will continue. it will stay in place until the new rule is fixed. that rule is designed to reduce the emissions by 70% by 2015. there are improvements going on. host: this is david from chicago on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a short comment and question for the guest. the caller said west virginia

is the richest state in the country and has some of the poorest citizens. i would suggest the people of west virginia look to shifting taxation to land value taxation. the owners of resource-rich land usually arrange to have their land taxed low. they capture more that is going into the pockets of the land owners. maybe they could lower their income tax and so forth. i want to ask -- i felt like heavy-handed regulation. i do not like the obama administration trying to put coal out of business. i do not like to see mountaintops blasted off. how much of the coal will be

obtained from mountaintop removal? guest: in terms of the percentage, in west virginia, itt probably about 10% or 15% of the production. how much of the future remains to be seen. about taxation, there is probably a good discussion on how you structure the tax policy in a state to benefit all of your citizens. the coal industry pays a severance tax once it reduces it and a everybody is paying sales taxes as well, whether it is on equipment or on the sale of coal and on the sale of electricity coming from the coal.

there is a revenue stream emanating from the coal production. host: you can get a sense on how coal politics is playing into the presidential campaign. take a listen to this ad. [video clip] >> when he ran for president, president obama pledged to invest in new technology. production has increased since president obama took office. he has made a large investment in clean coal technology, a $5 billion effort. natural gas production is at an all-time high with deposits across apalachicola, thousands of good jobs are on the way. mitt romney is attacking the

president's record on coal. >> i will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. is people. host: do you have any comments on that? guest: it has a lot to do with planning that occurred prior to 2008. i'm counting about 3000 minors without -- miners without jobs. i do not think there is any question that in some of the policies of the last couple of years, they believe they have been designed to jeopardize

their job and their future. host: do you think the administration's view of coal might be different than the record that the president just talked about? guest: you need the clean coal technology for tomorrow and our policy being issued will preclude that from happening. we are losing the advantage to on to tomorrow. in terms of new mines, over 200 permits in ohio, west virginia, kentucky, and virginia pending. they basically put a moratorium on that. it is not a question about more jobs in 2010 or 2011, but how

many jobs could have been created. two court decisions have told epa that they stepped out of bounds. probably more federal regulations. they'll also face the product of a federal law. host: mr. romney talked about his energy plan yesterday in new mexico. it is described as putting more power to the states and moving into thery overview f individual states. guest: this would be a plus. how do we eliminate the duplication? the process can be effective and

timely. that is where some of those points are coming from. federal government will defer more to the provincial government. host: next call is richard from florida, a republican. caller: i work for a cement plant and we use coal to fire the kiln. it was one of the cleanest coal- burning plants. our stacks were hooked up to the epa. like coal ash from power plants,

we would use that in our cement and we had trouble finding that. we would seek out coal plants and look for that ash. cement plants can have clean- burning coal. guest: the new power plants can. they want to put stringent requirements on existing plants that will be on what the best performing plants do now. they do not want them to be operated. the cement industry faces similar situations as utilities. standards that are put in place for operations that are a couple

of steps behind what technology can achieve, which is causing some shutdowns and performance standards that will be difficult to use for expanded cement capacity. host: charlotte on twitter wants to go back to your earlier take. guest: we are exporting 107 million tons last year across the globe. i do not have the exact number for china or india. they'll are becoming a larger customer. we see that as another opportunity for the coal industry here and for the benefit of all americans.

revenue from coal exports is allowing the economies of those countries overseas it to grow, which increases demand across the united states. host: where does the united states rank as a coal producer ? wo globally.r to vote global china is number one. we import some coal. it is -- expo host: just a couple of minutes left. dorothy is a democrat from michigan. caller: i like to say a comment.

we support our president's policy on clean air. we support his all the above approach. i listened to mr. romney's speech yesterday. it is amazing how he takes the words of our presidents and he is trying to get all these regulations, his best effort is put for the concern of the american people. do you realize how many people suffer from emphysema, asthma because of the clean-air policies and the laws that are not abided by the get-rich companies. we support our president and his policies and we want to make sure that you guys are regulated and follow the law on

york republican agenda. thank you. guest: i don't have a republican agenda. the caller supports improving performance and we are not talking about no regulations but reasonable regulations that can be aligned with the best technology available. that will serve the public through reliable electricity. the median house call and come -- $50,000 or less. 10 years ago there were spending 12% of that on energy. today they are spending 21% of their after-tax income. that is an aggressive approach. we support improvement of the sector overall and it is not a matter of no regulations.

we're trying to find a balance that serves everybody best. host: if it is not benefiting consumers. guest: they were coming down for many years. electricity prices were flat for decades, particularly as coal became more permanent in the energy mix. it was i called tall time between coal and gas and renewals and uncertainty in terms of what the targets are for the electricity sector. host: last question from jim in rylarhode island. caller: i very much like your show.

the last segment on momism was informative. ism.ormon is so and get the impression that people were jumping on a pretty good. i live in the shadow of a coal power plant and they have just built two new cooling towers and the water used to be used by the bay to cool the things in it and there was an adverse affect. having fished and lives as a child on that bay. as the cooling towers have been built, within months of their operation, things have improved. is this a trend that plans like this are going to be improved

and going to be better neighbors as this has happened and it is a positive thing and wanted to let you know that. guest: it is a trend. we're trying to deploy the cleanest possible technology. there will be less of an impact on the bodies that they are using it for cooling water. also in terms of the emissions in the plants. the record should be applauded rather than condemned. we have increased coal use in our electricity system, we have been able to reduce by 100% the emissions from that sector.

host: there response from the administration about new regulations forthcoming after the election. guest: it seems there are a number of things on hold for the moment. when elected the calendars on the regulations, some of these rules slip back in terms of their targets for release. host: thank you for being here this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: we have one final segment this morning. you will learn more about talking points memo and our guest is sahil kapur. let's take you to a live picture inside the convention center in tampa, florida.

that is where the republican national convention is scheduled to begin next week. it looks like they are getting ready for the balloon drop. they are loading balloons into chute.o we will be 24/7 with election coverage including events happening around the city of tampa and the political implications of what is happening there. that is 670,000 feet, seven separate levels. the amount of electricity and fiber connectivity will be the most ever utilized for any event happening in the state of florida. we are keeping an eye on the

hurricane as it approaches. a lot of coverage on this network. you can follow it on a second hub.n on our convecention you can pull clips and share them. we have twitter aggregation from delegates and the public as you watched the speeches. all that beginning officially on monday and our introductory coverage on sunday here on c- span. we'll take a break and we'll be right back.

>> this weekend on "book tv," from his 2010 interview with juan williams, mitt romney from his book "no apology." >> they felt the president was not going to be a strong defender of american values and american principles, human rights, democracy, free trade, free enterprise -- those statements have emboldened those who find us as a weakened enemy. >> later, an investigative reporter explores the early years of mitt romney in bloomfield, michigan, through the 2002 winter olympics and hispart of our "book tv" weekend on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is sahil kapur. he is our latest guest in a look

at online coverage that is available to you. we'll have you explain your publication and its role in the political dialogue. on monday, we visited the grio. sahil kapur is a congressional reporter for talking points memo which has been around since 2000. what is your role? guest: the publication was started in 2000 and it has grown a lot since then. g as a grown from a blo news portal with 35.

host: does it have a political point of view? guest: we tried to cover stories based on what we think are the most important issues. host: congress is out right now. perhaps a lame duck session is coming up. let me start by asking how you approach your job. so much to cover on capitol hill. what motivates you to report? guest: the key thing that we look out on the congressional inde is to try to keep i touch with the key issues on a day-to-day basis. we try to stay focused on the

race and keep readers up-to-date and what the meeting is behind certain things that happen. whether the federal budget or the tax code or health-care policy and the future of medicare and medicaid. we try to give readers a rounded sense of where we're going with these major issues. host: for whom do you write? guest: i think it is a mix of people that are interested in knowing, people who want to keep in touch with what is happening in washington and politics. we have a lot of readers around the country. host: you are in new york today but where is your regular headquarters? guest: our headquarters are in

washington but i am in new york this week. about one-third of the organization in washington, roughly 10 or so. host: where in washington are you located? guest: we are downtown, close to farragut square. host: this is a video of your washington offices right now. about 3 or four miles from the capitol where your office is located. guest: that is right. host: josh marshall was a guest on c-span for a discussion about himself and how he got interested in reported and we have a clip of that so you can meet the man who led the idea behind talking points memo.

him. listen to [video clip] >> that first moment i said i would do this myself, great this website. >> when -- i think there were a couple of moments when i did not do it yet. it was a false start. when i was in graduate school, i was involved in web design to support myself. i put together a newsletter that was about things having to do with the internet and stuff like that and i liked that. i think i like being a publisher, putting something together. i got into being a political journalist. i had an urge to do some thing like id and it only came together at the end of the 2000 election when this place i was

working at the time, it was a biweekly and came out -- it cannot twice a month. a very different time and i had an urge to do something like this and i was on vacation was supposed be the week after the 2000 election, which was still going on down in florida. i started then and i just was addicted from the beginning. host: that is a view from our video library, and review with judge marshall. let me ask you how his spirit is reflected in the work that you do who work for him.

guest: i think josh is an important guiding force and the editorial vision for the company. it is a big job and our company is trying to expand. he tries to stay involved on the editorial side as well and trying to grow the company and move is it in the right direction. host: i want to invite our audience online, particularly those who check in with talking points memo to be part of the conversation. we also want to talk about the news coverage and the events going on. to dive into that, let me ask you about the announcement of paul ryan as mitt romney's running madte.

how will mr. ryan's addition to the campaign affect the relationship between the campaign and congress' when congress returns? guest: i think the selection of paul ryan clarifies the election and makes clear the republican party has embraced his ideas to remake the federal budget and the social safety net and to remake the pass code in ways we have wanted to for a long time. especially since republicans took control of the house in the 2010 sweep and expanded their seats in the senate. paul ryan has been the visionary behind that. you have the nominees, mitt romney who will likely be moving

in this direction and now he has the best spokesperson to advocate for this cause and for the policies that he wants. it certainly roundabout the ticket and clarified the choice in the election. in terms of an impact on the election, it is not clear that the selection of paul ryan has helped set differently. he is still a polarizing figure. he has been out there on the stump and defends the policies. his plan to convert medicare into a voucher system is not popular and this is something that democrats have been hammering away at for years. host: let me turn to calls to get the audience in a vault.

we will hear some things that they'll want to talk about. this is a democrat from san diego. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i agree with newt gingrich that mitt romney is a liar. we can see he lies almost every time he opens his mouth, and so does paul ryan. when we see this on tv, we would appreciate the media -- you are there. could you please get the truth out of them? specific's go to a issue. where have you heard a romney- ryan whlie? caller: every time they open their mouths. about welfare. that is an lie.

host: what the obama plan would do. guest: this is an important part of the campaign. what really happened is the obama administration in response to requests from several governors decided that 1996 welfare law, obama administration offered a waiver from a part of that law and they said if the states can move people from welfare to work using alternate means, then we will let you test other avenues. the obama administration made clear that the waiver would apply to states that achieved the same goal in other ways. the characterization that the president is gutting welfare is

not accurate and this is something we have written a number of stories about and the president himself a dressed -- addressed earlier this week. i think it is true and we have written in number of stories about this. the romney campaign's characterization of the president's health care plan would had a little over $100 billion in cuts. to deflect criticism of paul ryan and this is not really true. the congressional budget office said the cuts are on the provider reimbursement side and

will not affect beneficiaries. taking a broader picture, we do view our role -- an important part is to fact check statements and online media organizations are better equipped to do this, to do is coverage and to try to get what we think is the truth. host: that is the gist of a question on twitter by maverick. what are the advantages that you might have over a network news coverage? guest: a big evanish is we're closely in touch with leaders. we're constantly monitoring our readers who to bust too

important things that are happening and we have a small staff and did not have the opportunity to view every aspect. online media, where we benefit the most is we can cover things in real time whereas network news has to plan things in advance. news can break like the paul ryan picke. we found out saturday morning it would be paul ryan and our goal would be to have it for readers on our live wire section where we try to keep them updated and within an hour, we can have a full-length story discussing the pick and the implications behind it.

host: how many people visit your site? guest: we're in the millions of viewers. host: richmond, virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i think what online media, the right wing talking point of the liberal media is nothing but a hoax. you have fox and online media to the right wing opinion dominates at all. the lies that the first caller talked about with mitt romney. another lie being spread is that paul ryan is a fiscal hawk. never once did he even talked about a balanced budget. i would like for the media to

start calling them out on their lies. host: we want to show a profile that our guests did on august 16. the headline -- your response to the caller. guest: the caller makes an interesting point about paul ryan. a number of important aspects to this have been obscured. it is true that in the george bush administration, he has been a congressman for over 13 years. he sided with republicans and voted with the bush white house on a number of bills that considerably added to the deficit and helped turn a surplus into a record deficit. this includes the tax cuts

tilted mostly to high incomes and the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the medicare part d and the bank bailout and the auto bailout. one thing that has been true is that paul ryan has always been -tax and anti-social safety net. he co-sponsored -- it seems clear he has always have these ideas. he talked about the bush administration and now petraeus myself as reform.

even now a big part of the -- it depends on promises that have not been detailed. he talks about balancing the budget by closing loopholes and closing credits in the tax code. he has refused to identify which ones he will close. it is not so much a political dodge. to achieve the numbers he wants, the chileans and chileans of dollars in recovered revenues, he will have to close the mortgage interest deduction and things that benefit the middle class and have tremendous support in congress. the notion this is doable is questionable and very much up for debate just how strong paul

ryan is as a fiscal hawk. host: this question comes from gary on twitter. guest: sure. i did a story and this is before this week when the todd akin comments came out. the obama campaign had an ad out insinuating that mitt romney opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, which is not true. in 2008, he flirted with the idea that he would oppose abortion in all cases.

when he was asked, he has consistently said he supports those exceptions. we pointed that out just this week. we had a story about how the obama campaign was attacking the romney campaign for statements that pretty closely mirrored what the statements were. i think it was worth noting that the attack had that aspect to it. host: this is nick from california, a republican. caller: good morning. i have been watching c-span for years and it is getting harder for me to do it because of the hot air from the guests.

it is all news media. what concerns me is what they are not talking about. the regulations that the congress passes. we did not hear much about them except a few words. theyelse is in theire that are not talking about? nobody knows what it is. when are we going to start getting some honest information from all these thousands news experts? thank you. host: thank you. guest: i'm not sure what specifically the caller is referring to. a lot of amendments get tacked on and we do not know the full details.

we're not a big staff at tpm. i do think we work hard to try to stay on top of the important aspects of legislation that does get past and we cover the closely. legislation that passed under the radar that had some controversial components was a couple of months ago. the house appropriations subcommittee passed legislation that revived a debate from earlier on this year about whether or not a health insurance plan should cover contraception for women. an amendment was tacked onto a bill that went unnoticed. we worked hard to point that out that this was out there. i would be interested to see what kinds of harmful bills are out there that the immediate

does not give coverage to. host: next is a call from south dakota and north york our viewes tanner. caller: i was curious about what you thought of other media sites. host: thank you very much. guest: specifically, i don't have a strong opinion on them. a lot of what they do is a conspiracy oriented, from what i've seen from them. regard to online media sites in general, we try to keep up-to- date with what other online media sites are reporting as well as print newspapers and

magazines. we tried to stay with the latest developments on the news. host: how are you deploying yourself to cover the presidential campaign? guest: we have a team of three reporters that are working full- time on the presidential campaign. the election has permeated a lot of our coverage because it has extended to many aspects. congress is about the presidential election. a lot of what is happening in the election foreshadows what the future of public policy will be and we cover that. there are major battles in pennsylvania and florida and our investigative reporters are covering that. we have three reporters that are covering a closely and will have two reporters and an editor

go down to the convention in tampa. host: i want to ask about the todd akin story. there is a headline from a colleague that says "akin puts the chance at a legitimate risk." guest: the comments by todd akin have been a major focal point of coverage. they raise a lot of issues. the sheer backlash of those remarks which has been led by republicans because republicans have rushed to distance themselves from that. this was a race which should've been a slam-dunk for republicans. claire mccaskill won in the 2006 sweep and is vulnerable.

a lot of people wrote her off and now she has a fighting chance of winning. this also matters on the presidential stage because romney and ryan have worked to actively condemn and repute the remarks and i believe paul ryan called todd akin to ask him to drop out. paul ryan has worked with todd akin on anti-abortion legislation in the past. paul ryan has a fairly consistent record of opposing abortion in these instances of rape and incest. the romney camp has tried to

distance themselves from. mitt romney supports these exceptions and paul ryan is comfortable with these exceptions. there are a number of shifts with the romney campaign trying to protect its image as the story blows up. this gets to the republican agenda and howe and whether or not the party will include such a platform. usually the republican party can have opposition to abortion in all cases. the comments by todd akin, there is a big microscope on whether the republicans are going to include that platform. that has been a major topic of

coverage. it comes down to the women's votes. republicans have been working hard to close the gap, the gender gap, as you might call it. host: we are talking about what you can do online. what about accessibility? how easy is it for you to get access particularly to the presidential campaigns? guest: i think the presidential campaigns want to have their say and they'll want the best coverage they can get. there likelier to go to big papers like "the new york times" and "the washington post" if there is a big story to break.

we have been pretty fortunate in having access to both candidates and having our questions answered. host: would rather be following the campaigns or doing work on policy positions and ferreting out how it would play out? guest: we divide that up. and reporters are focusing on the day to day debate. on the congressional team, we try to cover the underlying public policy issues and at least what the debate foreshadows for the future of public policy. it is a mix of both. caller: i am a democrat in maine.

i'm looking at boston.com. he is not nanjing that they are taking our tax money intended for the future. it will be worthless. the democrats are saying, we'll have more people into medicare. it will be worthless and doctors are not going to take it. he is not an independent journalist. democrats make more money than republicans on average. they are the ones that gutted welfare under clinton. they cut the taxes on the wealthy in the 1960's. this should be a fight between right and wrong. apparently is a democratic lacking.

i volunteered for the party until they slapped me in the face. cuomo gave tax breaks and that says what the party are about. there are about cold, hard cash . future medicare is going to be worthless. we have to pay medicare taxes. it will cover 50% of the medical care act. the average poor person is a homeless mother. she will be facing problems. she will be facing fines if he cannot get coverage. the democratic party is getting her vote. they are not getting my vote and i do not think they will be getting my vote either. it is very sad.

it is about the choice between coke and pepsi. he should not be called a journalist. guest: i thank the caller for expressing her opinion. i would be interested to see evidence that medicare cuts in the affordable care act, that they will harm beneficiaries. the congressional budget office -- the impact will be minimal. the overall impact of those cuts look to strengthen the life of the program by eight years. it will be going in the red in 2024. the caller mentioned that democrats gutted welfare. that was the 1996 bipartisan

law. that has had its critics on the left. and believe it was too harsh. that was a legitimate point to make. it has also had some success. some people think it was a good idea. host: does talking points memo invite public comment to your articles as you post them? guest: absolutely. we have the public comments section. people can post anonymously. that needs to be policed more. if you can hide behind anonymity, it becomes all the more tougher to make it into a healthy place for discussion.

we do through the facebook account now. all of our stories have the option for readers to comment on them. host: how often do you read what readers post about your stories? guest: every so often. i try to keep in touch with what readers think. that is one of the main ways that readers can contact us. they can send an e-mail. one thing that keeps me on my feet is that readers are very much engaged. if i make an error, i'm sure i will be hearing from our readers about that. host: you have work in journalism for your entire career, is that correct? guest: that is right.

host: what is the best advice you ever got? guest: the best advice? nothing in particular comes to mind. i did not grow up wanting to be journalist. i got more and more into politics and public policy laid in college. that led me to the place where i wanted to write about it on a regular basis with what i think are the key issues. i have to get back to you on that. host: next is linda from tennessee, a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: the media is only 11% conservative. you're welcome to shut down fox , is only conservative channel.

someone call from north carolina and there was an argument with how liberal c-span has become during this election year. most of these moderators have come over from npr. that tells you where c-span is coming from. the first 45 minutes, there has to be an app on the obama phone. they get it way above their at large population. host: where do you get your information from? caller: i listen, watch television and a wash all the stations.

-- and i watched all the stations. host: i can tell you at our staff is not from npr. they're all here blending together with our non-partisan approach and bipartisan approach to covering issues. here's a question on twitter. >> we have not devoted much coverage to the candidate. it is a very legitimate point to make. the point to debate that people should look beyond the two-party system. we have not found the capacity to cover the parties beyond the

two political parties, which we no one will be president and that either of the parties would be elected to the house and senate races. host: this is jay from seattle. caller: do you research the stories -- and i do mean stories -- for facts? you know, basic journalism -- who, what, when, where, how? i understand you have two people that cover the hill. he need a little bit more to hill and morend

objective point of view is. guest: we do try to make sure everyone of our stories regardless of the issues has the perspective of every side that we're covering. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

host: thank you for being with us today. >> later today we'll have more road to the white house coverage, mitt romney and his vice presidential running mate paul ryan will campaign in michigan. it's the first stop for both candidates, as they head for detroit and columbus tomorrow. michigan and ohio are considered swing states in the election. the rally starts live today at 12:05 eastern, we'll have it for you on c-span.

our countdown to the conventions continues, until our gavel to gavel coverage of the republican convention starting monday and the democratic convention starting september 4th. every minute, every speech, live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at cspan.org, featured speakers include ann romney, christina:ie with the keynote address tuesday, congressman paul ryan delivers his vice presidential acceptance speech wednesday, thursday night, presidential nominee mitt romney. use our online convention hub to watch web exclusive video feeds, create and share video clips, add your comments and connect with other viewers, all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. my brother, scott, last night called me up, said i watched the debate on c-span. you did great. you got your ass kicked by rhee rice. >> [applause]

>> -- by lee rice. [applause] >> lee rice. where is lee rice? lee rice. >> [applause] >> man. what a gentleman! what a gentleman! what a pleasure. what a delight it has been to debate lee rice, a dozen times. let's get this guy elected! >> [applause] >> lee rice said it along the way and it's true, we made each other better candidates and i can't thank him enough and like i say, no one, no one, could have been more cordial, no one could have been more gracious, no one

could have been more articulate regarding libertarian ideals and beliefs. >> later tonight we'll show you more speeches from third party candidates like lirtarian nominee gary johnson. we'll show you remarks from the constitution party. green party. and reform party conventions. if you're voting for a third party candidate this year, log on to our facebook page and let us know who and why. and we'll read some of your comments on the air tonight. pictures now of the tampa bay times forum in florida where workers are continuing preparations for next week's republican national convention. it starts this coming monday and officials at the rnc are saying the amount of electricity, cabe ling and fiber employed for the convention will likely be the most ever used for any event in the state. now, 50,000 people are expected. the republican organizers are also saying the convention will get underway monday despite threats of a hurricane or tropical storm.

tropical storm isaac could cause a shakeup in the security plans for the convention because about half of the expected officers come from other parts of the state and some could be forced to stay home because of the storm. >> earlier this week, in tampa, the republican national convention platform committee approved a draft platform that will be presented next week to the republican national committee at the start of the convention. here's a portion of that meeting now, focusing on constitutional government, abortion, and civil unions. >> all the delegates, please take your seat. we're going to begin on the constitution section. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for everything you've done so far. it's been extraordinary, 2 1/2 days. we are an hour and 15 minutes ahead. my goal is to keep us on schedule. but there are obviously critically important things we still have to address during the course of this

platform committee, talking about the constitution, government, and health, crime, education, as we finish this time out. it's my honor to chair this section, dealing with the united states constitution. which i think most of us would agree was the greatest political document ever written. it has been -- >> [applause] >> -- it has ushered in more freedom and prosperity and liberty and opportunity for the people of the united states than any country on earth and in fact many around the globe have mimicked the language in our constitution to provide the same opportunities for their people. it took a lot of work after the articles of the confederation of 1777 were determined to be insufficient for the union in 1787. in fact september 17th, when it was finished, just 225

years, we'll celebrate that in a couple of weeks. the document was finished. now, those of us from virginia take a little special pride in the document, and like james madison, and george mason and others who had a hand in crafting that, we're particularly pleased that virginia made some contribution to that. since its ratification in 1788, it has been a document that has done an immense amount of good for now 300 plus million people of the united states. this year, the platform, as i assumed the chairmanship of, i talked to ben and the team and we felt that because of some of the assaults on the united states constitution by this administration and because of the need to reaffirm our belief in the union, and the timeless approaches in this constitution, that we would do what no other platform has

done at least in recent past is to have a separate section solely on the united states constitution. those principles of the sections have not been ignored, but based on -- this year, we felt it was incredibly important to laser the focus on the united states constitution, and many from our states felt that that was important, as well. and thus, you have this separate section dealing with the constitution. we know that this administration, whether it's true big government, excess of omabacare, or various mandates on the states that have trampled on the system of federalism that jefferson and madison and others thought were important, as acknowledged in the tenth amendment to the united states constitution, whether it's some of the things that have been done through the administrative process act to circumvent the will of the

elected representatives in the united states congress, whether it's been some of the actions of the united states attorney general recently that are now under scrutiny by the united states congress, i think we've had significant concerns about whether or not this great document has been honored by this administration, and that's another reason that we decided to carve this out. so you can see this section, i think a brilliant reaffirmation of the words and the principles in that. we really do believe that we are a nation that only succeeds because we govern by the consent of the governed. that was a revolutionary concept some 225 years ago. and in this section, we have a number of things that are important, including not only reaffirming those principles, but also saying how further amendments might be necessary to protect our liberties, constitutional amendment to protect human life, a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, a constitutional amendment to require --

[inaudible] >> >> [inaudible comments] >> -- forced on future generations because we will enforce self-discipline on the united states congress. there are a lot of important issues that are covered in here. obviously our belief that the first amendment and second amendment are so fundamental to our liberties. and in the wake of the kilo decision, the fact that the fifth amendment needs to be given new life to protect the rights of private property. so this is an exciting section, i think, for all of us. many of you are here, because of the -- >> [inaudible comments] >> thank you for you making that a reality. so i think this is going to be a great exchange. we have a number of amendments that have already come in. i'm going to be a little bit of a tough task master here.

there is a clock up here and i do want to ask you to please keep your comments to a minute. for us to have a robust discussion, but show respect for your fellow delegates so each can have their say and then to move on to call to questions so that all amendments can be done here in short aerd order, i'm going to ask that you please keep your discussion to one minute. we had great leaders on this subcommittee who i think went through more amendments than the other subcommittee. i think at the end of the day there were about 75 or 80 amendments that were offered, debated, many adopted in the subcommittee. i think they have improved this document to the point you see it in front of you now. and the subcommittee was led by jim bopp, who is the constitutional lawyer, who's a veteran of many of these platform committees from the great state of indiana, and he's also the vice chairman of the republican party for our state and also jane timken from ohio, who is the

distinguished attorney from the great buckeye state. so with that i'm going to turn it over to jim bopp for introductory comments and take up the discussion. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to first express my appreciation to our co-chairman, jane timken, of ohio for her leadership and her thoughtful contributions to the work of the subcommittee. this election is about big things. and there's nothing bigger than the united states constitution. you know, the united states constitution was a very radical development in the history of the world. for the first time, it was the people controlling the government, rather than the vernment controlling the people. the constitution was based on the idea of the consent of the governed and that our citizens were actually engaged in an exercise of self-government. now, the united states constitution guarantees a

limited government so that the people will have the maximum freedom to pursue their life's dreams. and of course, this has resulted in the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world. something that all peoples throughout the world seek to imu late. the obama administration, however, has taken numerous steps to put out this flame of freedom by defying the protections of the united states constitution. our subcommittee on restoring constitutional government addresses these big and fundamental issues, for the first time in a separate section in our platform. we started with an excellent 6-page draft and after the consideration, actually mr. chairman, of some 100 amendments, i think that i can say that we have met the challenge to develop a section that celebrates the promise of our u.s.

constitution. the second explains why the obama white house has shown utter disregard for many of our constitutional guarantees as it grabs unprecedented executive power and how our republican party respects the genious of our founders in framing our constitution and how it will restore that vision. many substantive issues are addressed in this section. we condemn the obama administration's violation of the rule of law by exercise ing authority in defiance of acts of congress and united states constitution and calling for a balanced budget amendment. we condemn judicial activism and call for constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage and the -- and to restore legal poebgs for the unborn. we support the separation of power set out in our

constitution and our federalist system against the assaults by the obama administration. we support the electoral college and oppose the national popular vote interstate compact. we affirm measure for the -- measures for the -- to support the integrity of the our election system, particularly the right to vote. we condemn the obama administration's war on religion and affirm the first amendment's protection of free exercise of religion. we support the first amendment's freedom of speech and call for the repeal of the remaining provisions of mccain-feingold, and for raising or repealing contribution limits to candidates and political parties. we support the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms and advocate further protection of that right. we urge measures to be taken to protect the fourth

amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and the fifth amendment's protection of private property from being taken by the government. we urge respect for the ninth and tenth amendments which protect the rights of the people and the states against enroachment by the federal government. we support the protection of the flag and the recitation of the pledge of allegiance and oppose the use of foreign laws in interpreting the u.s. statutes and our u.s. constitution. i'd like to congratulate our subcommittee for their fine work and we are pleased to present our subcommittee report and draft to the full committee for its consideration. >> jim, very well done. i apologize for understating the number of amendments you took up. over 100. but that says that many of these issues were well debated in that committee and

many adopted. you've approved the document and it's a terrific work that you did in just a couple of short hours. so shafs very well said. i look at the declaration of independence -- by the way, also written by a virginian, the second governor of virginia, you may have heard of him, thomas jefferson -- it's great being chairman, i can talk about this -- as the chart of the country, and then the constitutions -- the constitution is theby laws if you think it -- the bylaws and these bylaws have been tremendous and well debated in the early days and only been amended a small handful of times in these 225 years. so it has shaod the test of time. over the -- stood the test of time. over the next two hours we're not going to rewrite the constitution, we're only going to say how that applies to modern day democracy and what we affirm, what we would like to see added to make

sure this incredible document stays strong and the source of our liberties. i think it's so important that this document starts off with the principle that we all recognize these rights come from the contrarior, and that government -- creator and that governments are instituted among men to protect them and that's why the constitution, particularly the bill of rights, goes into some detail in how to protect those individual liberties. so jim, very well done. jane, did you want to say anything before we get started with the amendments? >> yes. thank you. i'd like to thank the chairman for the honor of serving as the co-chair on this committee. i'd also like to thank my co-chair, jim bopp. i believe we did an excellent job. in addition, i'd like to cite to the preamble of the constitution that states that the role of the constitution is to secure the blessings to ourselves and to our pestert -- posterity. the constitution is the foundation of our great nation, and again, i'm honored to serve on this

committee, and i look forward to this full committee approving this section. thank you. >> okay. with that, we will go to the beginning of the section, caption restoreing -- restoring constitutional government. -- i don't -- i see no amendments in this section. the first one i've got is page two, on line 14. that's the first amendment. so with regard to the section restoring constitutional government, is there any discussion on this section? >> all right, hearing none, that section is closed. second section, page one, line 22, restoring constitutional order of congress and the executive branch, see no amendments?

any discussion on that section? hearing none, that section is closed. page two, line 10, marriage and the judiciary. now, is this strike on line 14? is this line 14? okay. let me recognize, then, barbara fenton from rhode island. >> i appreciate you hearing me out. this has been one of the coolest things i've ever -- don't start with that rookie stuff. you've been asked for two days. >> it's been the coolest two days of my life. first i want to start off, with the amendment, saying as a roman catholic, there is nobody in this room who believes more that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. but those are my religious beliefs. and this country was founded on the separation of church and state. and coming from rhode island, we take that pretty seriously

we were founded out of the freedom of religious persecution. if you look back over the course of civilization many times the heads of -- heads of religion were from the states and things get mixed, marriage becomes a cloak wal term. the definition might be defined. i think we have to stay very strong in keeping marriage the religious sacrament that it is and recognizing as many of us are christians, our church's definition of one man and one woman but our founding fathers kind of took it in a cloak -- colloquial sense, and government categorized us, we're single, married, widowed, whatnot and it truly became a method of categorization. this amendment is offered out of the basis that every one of us must have equal rights.

perhaps the greatest success of my parents, my parent's generations and generations before that is that at 31, i don't see people because of the color of their skin, and i don't recognize them by their sexuality and that might be their greatest achievement, that a lot of us don't. and for my own generation, a lot of times homosexuality isn't the biggest deal in the world anymore and that's okay. somehow they still have to have equal rights. >> to summarize, then, you are striking -- stkprao striking line 14, where -- >> striking line 14, where it's -- >> i'm going to say that apparently the copy was cut off, so if everybody would please direct your -- >> i will read it. >> eyes to the screen. please make sure that's correct on the screen, you have added new language. >> yes, so we're striking line 14, where it says this is more of a matter -- more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals and in the interest of separation of church and state, at the end of the paragraph, that in

accordance with the founding father's' guiding principle of the separation of church and state we promote ending government categorization of our religious sackment, recognizing a civil union partnership for heto sexual and homosexual couples, and i want to make one correction, it says may the blessed sackment of marriage, strike religion, in whatever way a religion chooses to define it be recognized by the church. >> okay. let's get the rest of that up there. are we going to try to get that? >> we're going to highlight it. >> okay. all right. to get the amendment in front of us, is there a second? >> second. >> there's a second. is there a discussion? i figured there might be. >> i'm here to opposed

amendment. an almost identical amendment, health, education and crime, it was rejected soundly by the committee. i think that this is -- our party has been the party supporting traditional marriage, we need to continue to be the party that defend traditional marriage and i would ask the delegates to vote in opposition to this amendment. >> okay. >> i firmly support this amendment and briefly, i know we don't have a loft time, but i served in the legislature in the state of connecticut and we were the first state to pass this without judicial interaction and i think ms. fenton actually said it quite eloquently. it's a debate we've had for many years. i don't think this diminishes or de grades marriage.

my parents have been married 55 years, and i believe in that institution, but i think these terms have been comingled for so long that we've lost the difference between civil and religious, and i think that this defines that very clearly. it does not denigrate or take away from what we truly believe as republicans and what we believe. thank you. >> okay. all right. we are not going to be able to entertain all the people that want to speak. we'll ask for a couple other comments and then i'm going to ask the subcommittee chairman to say what happens. mr. perkins. >> tony perkins from louisiana. the amendment seeks to interject something that is not completely true when we look at the issue of marriage government extends benefits to marriage because marriage benefits society. the social science, as well as the experience of marriage, is that it benefits

children, which in turn benefits society. children from an in tact marriage do better economically, culturally, socially, they do better in their school. this would move us away from a party that recognizes the benefits that marriage extend to a society. historically marriage has been the cornerstone. we dealt with this in the health committee as well, and very clear that this party has stated something in clear contrast to the other party. we recognize nature, we recognize history, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. this would move the party immensely away from the position that this party has held. >> i think -- listen, i think everybody understands this issue. i'd like to call on mr. bopp to ask what was the discussion in the subcommittee, was this taken up, and what was the discussion there. >> there's a similar

amendment proposed in our subcommittee and it died from lack of second. so i -- we would oppose the adoption of this amendment. the recognition of marriage between a man and woman has nothing to do when the government does that -- when the government does that, has nothing to do with separation of church and state. there are numerous and such compelling reasons for government to protect a husband, a wife and a child, children, as married and family, that every country in the history of the world has recognized that as a fundamental basis for their society. so religions are free to recognize whatever unions they choose to, and under our free exercise of religion, there is nothing that prevents that from happening. but the civil government has a responsibility to do what is best for society and

protecting traditional marriage as opposed to adoption of what would be a counterfeit marriage as a civil union would be -- is adequately supported by the compelling reasons to protect that union. >> okay. i think both sides have been properly represented and you know what you believe on this subject. there's a motion to call the question. a second? moving to the second, the question be called. the motion, the -- the question is shall the amendment be adopted. all in favor of adopting the amendment say aye,. >> aye. >> all opposed, say no. >> no. >> the amendment is rejected. >> >> chairman? >> yes. >> kim lehman over here. >> ms. lehman from iowa.

>> i just would ask for consistency. if we're going to actually call the question, have it seconded, that we actually vote on that. >> you are exactly correct. i got a little ahead of myself. >> i'm sorry. >> so here's what we're going to do. we're going to do it right. the actual first question was on whether or not the debate should be ended. and the question was called. so the first vote is shall the debate be ended, in other words, should the question be called. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the question to be called, the question is shall the amendment offered by ms. tp*epbt i don't know -- fenton, page two, line 14, adopted, all in air say aye, all opposed, no. >> no. >> opinion of the chair, the amendment is rejected, ms. lehman, thank you very much. i was getting a little ahead.

okay. the next amendment is con15, page two, line -- >> 36. >> hold on, that's in the sec section, though. -- in the next section, though. so in the section, marriage -- let me see. i'm sorry. >> constitution five, constitution -- patrick kirby. >> hold on a minute. is that in the marriage and judiciary section? >> no, sir. >> so in the section -- >> it actually overlaps. >> i couldn't tell because you have line 17. so which section, mr. kerby, is this actually going to be in, under marriage and

judiciary or defense of marriage? >> this would begin in the marriage and judiciary, and then actually, deletes the defense of marriage. >> o'clock. so -- okay. so before we close judiciary and the marriage, we'll recognize mr. kerby for con5. >> thank you mr. chairman, i'll be brief. this is a similar amendment, and my purpose for this amendment is that i believe this is the most important election of our lives, i believe that country is at a tipping point already, and i believe this social issue grants hollywood and the media to paint us as people who aren't after a free country, but kind of a theological -- we want to -- we don't want to impose our will on others. so i'll read this as it comes in. so for thousand of years virtually every civilization has been entrusted with the rearing of children and

transmission of cultural values. that being said and while we oppose any attempt by the judiciary to legislate from the bench, republicans recognize that the role of government is to protect the rights of the individual. in a free society, we must accept the rights of others to live in ways we cannot condone. as long as there is no infringements on the rights of others, it is not the role of government to judge. and so that, i really, really, really, really don't want obama to win this election. and i believe this is an issue that will be a tipping point, and that we can take this stance and still keep our commitment to the institute of marriage. that's not in debate. what is in debate is whether, under the constitution, every american gets treated equally under the law. >> okay. mr. kerby?

>> similar point to the last one. so we'll have brief discussion. ms. kennedy. >> point of order mr. chairman. >> who had the point of order? >> i was just raising a point of order. you didn't second the amendment. >> it's been seconded now. discussions, ms. kennedy. >> yes, thank you. cynthia kennedy, nevada. there are a few groups who have taken the time to come here and present their cause, and one of them is the young conservatives for the freedom to marry and to quote from their literature something that i think needs to be said to the body, they say we are a group of politically active young conservatives who strongly believe that support for the freedom to marry is in line with our core belief in limited government and individual freedom.

as president ronald reagan said, it is the role of government to work with us, not over us. to stand by our side. not ride on our back. they feel strongly that excluding committed same sex couples for marriage does not mesh with those principles, to quote former vice president dick cheney, freedom means freedom for everyone. now, i want to say that these people would be compelled to leave the republican party and go third party or even democrat when they are republicans. and they should not be condemned for their desire to have a civil union. and as has had been said in many pages about a union being the best environment in which to raise children, a couple union, these people also deserve to raise children as a couple. and to have their union be civilly defined. >> okay. i ask everybody, again,

please keep your eye on that clock. we're going to try to keep to a minute. mr. kobach. >> i oppose this amendment. i think the wording is too broad, especially as long as there are no infringements on others there is no role of government to judge. well, our government routinely judges situations where you might regard complete -- people completely affecting themselves, like for example the use of controlled substances, like for example polygamy that is voluntarily entered into. we condemn those activities even though they're not hurting other people at least directly. >> mr. bopp, is there any discussion of this in the subcommittee? >> again, the only proposal related to this subject prevailed for lack of a second. i would like to address the issue substantively. first, as to whether or not it is politically disadvantageous for this party to support traditional

marriage. actually, over 30 states have now incorporated in their own constitutions protection of traditional marriage. in every single state in which it has been proposed, it has passed. even in the state of california, where in 2008, at the very same time that obama was carrying california by almost 20 percent, the defense of traditional marriage passed in california by 52 percent. and recently in north carolina as well. this suggests that strongly supporting traditional marriage is actually quite popular and would enhance the support of our candidate. secondly is the fact that under our constitution people are free to come together and raise children, they can have it sanctioned by a religious body. the only question is that it cannot be and is not sanctioned by government, and that's a proper decision for

government to make. thus, it has nothing to do with the religious freedom. >> okay. i think this is a similar topic to the last amendment. i think people know where they stand on this. it's been a good exchange. is there a motion to call to question? >> it's been moved, seconded, the question be called. all in favor to call into question to end debate say aye, all opposed? the question is called. the question is now on the eldoffered by mr. -- on the amendment offered by mr. kerby. all in favor of the amendment, say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed, no. >> no. >> the opinion of the chair, the amendment failed. the next amendment is i think con15. okay, that section, then, on marriage and the judiciary, hearing no other comments, is now closed. and the subsequent section,

defense of marriage, page two, line 17, is also completed and is now closed. the next section is on the budget, page two, line 30. the first amendment we have in that section, con15, richard ford from rhode island. mr. ford. >> next line, 36, and richard ford from rhode island. >> okay go ahead, mr. ford, address your amendment in a minute. >> first i would like to say that as republicans we should all really take truth to the constitution and really hold it as our guiding principle. and now i will read my amendment. the federal income tax is unconstitutional and should be repealed. it is a soft version of slavery. it it is unconstitutional to tax our labor. it's only constitutional to tax corporate profit.

the income tax only ensures the interest of our national debt to the federal reserve. national debt -- we don't need to ensure our national debt, we need to eliminate it. >> okay. so the amendment is at the end of that section, at the end of line 36, calling for the elimination of the federal income tax. is there a second? all right, hearing none, we will move to the next amendment, which is -- actually, that's the last amendment from that section. any other discussion on the section on the budget? okay, hearing none, that section is closed. page three, federalism and the tenth amendment, the first amendment that i see is con6. mr. kerby from nevada. >> hell gotten. yes, i just wanted to add --

hello again. yes, i just wanted to adoo i'll read it through. we support the review and examination of all federal agencies to eliminate wasteful spending, operational inefficiencyings -- inefficiencies, and abuse of power. and then it continues. and the -- to determine whether -- >> mr. kerby, i apologize. we have made new forms that make it a lot clearer where we have insert and delete and this is the old form. what you are doing is line four, after operational efficiencies, you are inserting or abuse of power. >> correct. >> and it's on the screen. does that look right on the screen, that's what you're adding? it's been highlighted. >> absolutely correct. >> is there a second? >> second. >> this a discussion? >> i'll just discuss briefly -- >> go ahead. >> we've all seen the agency

that did an armed raid on a dairy, and that kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated in the united states. the agencies need to be held accountable and not abuse their power. >> okay. discussion? all right, no discussion? >> [inaudible comment] >> the move to second and question be called, all in favor of calling the question to end debate say aye, all in favor? all opposed? the question is called. now all in favor of the amendment offered by mr. kerby, say aye. >> aye. >> all oppose the amendment, say no. >> no. >> the amendment is adopted. >>

>> mr. kerby do you need to step out for a press conference. the next amendment that i have is con13. which is mr. henderson of north dakota. i think this is still this section, right? still federalism, tenth amendment, paul henderson, north dakota. >> thank you mr. chair. i love the wording at the end of this section that we're not going to take financial responsibility or require the nation's taxpayers to pay for the -- >> hold on. hold on. sorry mr. kerby. >> con13. >> hold on, please.

>> is there a 12? >> raise your hand if we do not have 13. >> 12 is on page four. >> they are numbered by when they come to the desk so please, colon logically -- >> i know this is confusing but the amendments are not picked up in the order of their number. so we're taking 13 before 12, because we're taking them obviously in the sequential order according to the page null and line number, so 12 is actually page four. we will get to that later. right now, we are on con13, page three, line 36 which is an addition of language at the very end of that section after misrule of state governments and you see it on the screen, shortly, it says nor shall the states assume the federal government's financial responsibility. mr. henderson. >> further comment on your

amendment. >> thank you chair *r kha e chairman. -- mr. chairman. i was going to reiterate that language that we should not pay for the misrule of the few state governments and my addition would be n opt r shall the states assume the federal government's financial responsibilities. and i say that coming from north dakota, running a projected $1 billion surplus, that in the back of my mind, i think that the federal government is going to look at states with surpluses and get greedy. >> okay. put into proper posture, is there a second? >> second. >> discussion? all right. it's been moved and seconded, that that amendment be agreed to. all in favor of adopting that amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? no.

>> no. >> that amendment is agreed to. that is the last amendment i have under that section. is there any other discussion on federalism and the tenth amendment on page three? >> all right, hearing none that section is closed. page four, first amendment that i see here is c8. mr. company batch -- kobach from kansas. >> as secretary of state of kansas i believe it is incredibly important to add this to our program. if you're just reading this it has to do with proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration which is an additional protection beyond photo i.d. laws which we now have in almost a dozen states, a true robust photo i.d. law. it is a significant form of fraud. at present, only two states have proof of citizenship at the time of registration. those are kansas and georgia in effect, where the laws are in effect. two other states had it, arizona and alabama. arizona's was recently struck

down by the ninth circuit which can give you an idea it was probably a good thing, alabama has it in its laws but is waiting preclearance from the obama justice department which can tell you if this president stays in office, they'll have a long wait. so i think it's important the republican party stand behind that we verify citizenship. there are other states that want to move in this tkebgs direction and this platform will give them a boost in doing so. >> if anybody doesn't have it, it's currently being handed out. it's also on the screen. mr. kobach, the way i read your amendment, you're not -- >> i'm not strikeing it. i'm adding this language. >> you're not necessarily calling for adoption by the states. you're simply saying that state laws that do this are a protection. >> yes. >> stating more of a principle. but you're not calling for any particular action, i don't think. >> just like the sentence

that precede it which expresses support for state laws that requires photo i.d., this has support for citizenship -- proof of citizenship at the time of registration. >> second. >> is there a second? >> yes, second. >> it's been moved and seconded that that amendment be adopted. discussion? >> i would like to share with you there are certain issues of the heart, of the head and some that are policy, some that are on the boots working. this is one of the most important things we will discuss today in my opinion. i think we need to give it time as hired as we we all are. voter integrity in america is at risk. it is at risk. it is poison to our entire system.

i think we have to acknowledge and be bold that people on the progressive side are willing to cheat in ways we could never before fast iom. and -- fast iom and i -- fathom and i think it is time we help every state struggling with this issue and help them address this, specifically through whatever is proposed, we need to decide that. i have a mentally disabled daughter, and a community organizer group took my daughter without her permission, without our knowledge, she cannot read, write, count, tell time, and for cookies and milk, they had her vote. you have no idea the extreme these people will go to to steal an election. we need to stand for this, fight for this, and be bold for this. >> [applause] >> mr. chairman, -- >> ms. summa from north carolina. >> i would ask mr. kobach if

he would accept an amendment to begin that paragraph, or begin that sentence with "we support state laws that require". >> i would accept that for the amendment. >> as a member of the largest county's board of election in my state, voter integrity is paramount to our freedom to vote. so anything that we can do to assure that people who are voting are actually the people they say they are and they are u.s. citizens, we need to do everything. in a state that our democrat governor vetoed our voter i.d. >> okay. ms. summa has made a second to the amendment to the primary amendment. is there a second to her amendment? >> second. >> mr. chairman -- >> hold on. so that amendment to the original amendment for mr. kobach has been moved and seconded. now discussion on that. >> point of order.

i think she needs to say we also have to add the word "to" if you make it "we support". "to" after the word "registration", at the time of voter registration to protect our system. it changes the structure of the sentence. you need "to" entered. >> that's your wording ms. summa? >> yes mr. chairman. >> so it's on the screen now. ms. summa's amendment to the primary amendment of mr. kobach has been moved and properly seconded. now discussion on the amendment. yes, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman, clarence mingo from columbus, ohio. i think the language we're discussing here, be it the first amendment or the second, is interesting. but i think it is very important and critical that this language not be used for strategic political purposes. our effort in this regard must be sincere, and that's to prevent voter fraud. any other message or any

other suggestion that the party or this platform is attempting to suppress votes for political gain, i don't think will help our cause much. that's certainly not the intent of this body. but i do think it's terrifically important that we demonstrate sincerity in this regard and highlight the fact that this is about voter fraud and not political gain. >> okay. the amendment, the substitute amendment or the second to the amendment is clarified. why don't we get the main issue in front of us. why went dough -- why don't we act on this amendment of ms. summa. is there any discussion on that largely technical amendment? all right, hearing none, all in favor of that second degree amendment say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? the amendment is agreed to. now we're back to the amended amendment of mr. kobach on the issue of voter registration. discussion?

>> mr. chairman, i would just like to echo from what the gentleman from ohio said and democrats have longly aasserted that we have political purposes in mind on this, and all we're trying to do is to protect voter integrity. and in our state, we actually had an election overturned because of people voting in the names of the deceased. and so we understand that this is a problem, and i urge this committee to pass anything that protects voters' integrity. >> okay, let me see some others. mr. lucas from west virginia. >> mr. chairman, to echo the staplts i'd like to applaud mr. kobach to offer this, as a state where we have three elected democratic officials being charged in voter fraud from the primary election held two years ago, we know this is a problem in preserving -- and preserving voter integrity cannot be

underestimated. i thank them for introducing this. >> other discussion? ms. dayton. ms. dayton has moved the question be called. is there a second? >> second. >> move to second that the question be called. all in favor of calling the question in the debate say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? a question is called. now the question is on the amendment offered by mr. mr. kobach, all in favor of the amendment say aye, all opposed, no. >> no. the amendment is adopted. now mr. kobach, let me ask you, your next one is page four, line nine. is that actually in the next section? >> if you're talking about content that, one is withdrawn. that was before i realized that the -- >> so that's out? you're withdrawing that? >> if that's moving ahead

with voter integrity, i'm withdrawing that. >> okay, content is withdrawn therefore, i believe that is the -- >> okay that, is the last amendment that i see for the electoral college section. so any other discussion on that section? >> okay.

that section, then, is closed. we now go to the voter integrity section on page four, line nine, and -- we have two amendments to page four, line 13. it appears that mr. kerby's is broader. and should be taken up first. i don't think they're in conflict. mr. chairman, hang on just a second. okay. we're going to go with mr. kerby's first. was there a point of order? mr. henderson? >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment is very close to mr. kerby's, and i would just support his and withdraw mine. >> okay.

thank you. all right mr. kerby. from nevada. >> hey, that's one vote! >> [laughter] >> thank you mr. chairman. this would continue the voting integrity right after the word "generations" on line 13, and it states "we recognize that paper ballots are the best way to ensure a fair election. let ambition counter ambition, as madison said, another virginian, by the way, i believe! >> thank you. >> when all parties have representatives observing the counting of ballots in a transparent process, integrity is assured. we strongly suggest that all electronic voting systems have a printed paper ballot so that preliminary electronic results can be verified by a hard count of paper ballots. >> secod. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded that this amendment be

adopted. and it is now on the screen. discussion? >> i believe -- >> mr. kerby, you got more to say? >> sure. i just believe that if a system can be corrupted, it will be corrupted. and i much -- i think we're a lot better off when all of us are looking over each others' shoulders as ballots are counted than we are trusting in the voter machine fairy. thank you. >> mr. chairman, mary summa -- >> i'm going to try to recognize a few people that have not spoken that much. ms. -- >> shalaga from maryland. i'm hoping the author would be open to a friendly amendment to his amendment. on the line where you have a printed paper ballot, in maryland, we've been fighting this and the correct words

that we've used is a voter voter-verified paper audit trail, and what that does is exactly what is stated. the voter verifies the paper audit trail, so it doesn't just printout a piece of paper but the voter verifies that that is, indeed, what they've chosen. so if the author of the amendment would entertain that, i'd appreciate it. >> would you state, ma'am, your specific amendment, where it goes? >> it would be on the third to the last line, where mr. kerby's amendment says "a printed paper ballot", and substitute "a voter-verified paper audit trail". >> certainly if that's the technical term for that, i have no problem with that. would we also need to put it at the very end? or could we maybe just put a period after "hard count"?

>> it's a little redundant. >> yes. >> cue probably take the -- >> probably put a period after "voter-verified paper audit trail" and eliminate the redundancy. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so to state the amendment, then, it's on the third to the last line from the bottom, we're going to strike "printed paper ballot" and insert "verified -- >> "voter-verified paper audit trail" period. >> then put a period after "hard count"? >> after "audit trail". >> and that is on the screen? the amendment? and is there a second to that substitute amendment? >> i'll second that. >> and mr. kerby is in favor of that amendment? >> yes. >> okay. so the substitute motion from

the gentlelady from maryland has been moved and seconded. discussion on the second substitute amendment? >> mr. chairman -- >> ms. temp ken? >> well, i can appreciate the sentiments of this amendment, i -- >> let me make sure, are you speaking to the substitute or speaking to the overall amendment? let's address -- the question on the floor is the substitute, the amendment to mr. kerby's amendment, are you speaking to that? >> not at this time. i will withhold until after. >> this is more -- i think of a technical or clarifying amendment to get the main issue before us. so are there any -- is there any discussion on the language of the substitute? mr. kobach. >> yes, i appreciate the amendmt from the gentlelady from maryland, her language is correct in the second part which is where i believe she inserted it, "the vvp pat or

verified audit trail is something we're trying to move toward in a number of states, not just kansas but all across the country, and the other alternative which i think the first half of this amendment speaks to, which we would be amending it is simply in paper ballots that you put through an electronic scanner but either way with the scanner or the pat you have a record of how the vote was cast so i think as the amendment, the amendment is -- as amended, the empty is before. >> .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the question is called on the substitute amendment. that amendment is adopted. we're back to the amendment itself by mr. kerby. there was a question on another part of the amendment. kerby dn't know if mr. wants to use strong or suggested demand. i would recommend taking -- i

love james madison but i do not know if the quotation adds much to that. >> i like it. >> it is the constitution section, after all. >> mr. kerby. >> i make a tactical error and i put "demand" instead of "strongly suggest." that is how i read it. it was printed as "demand." >> hold on. one at at time. mr. palazzo, you had a question on the "demand" line. >> i like to do this separately. it sounds like mr. kerby is in

agreement with that so maybe we should do that first. >> are you making a motion to reassert your original language? >> "strongly support." >> it has been moved and seconded. it is on the screen. the sixth line down. the word " demand" is struck. any suggestion? it.i'm all for >> all in favor? all opposed? the amendment is adopted.

>> i served on the mats lundberg county of elections in north carolina -- mecklenburg. we'll have 20,000 to 30,000 absentee ballots. i'm all in favor of voter integrity. i would like to make a motion to strike that first sentence about paper ballots. i am ashamed about the paper trail that we print. >> second. >> it has been moved and seconded. to strike the first sentence after the words "fair election." is that correct, miss summa?

>> i would strike it through "process." you can keep madison. >> i am confused. >> voter integrity must be assured. strike everything -- take "madison" out. strike everything until you get to the word "process." start the sentence, "voters integrity must be assured." >> i have a point of order. could we have mr. kerby and maybe miss summa just huddle?

>> i think everybody knows the issue is ballot integrity and whether we want to have paper ballots or paper backup. you're getting into some significant amendments to the amendment. if you are going to do that, let's propose that as a substitute and that and we will take that up at a later time. we still have another amendment in the voter integrity section and that is con-14. page 4, line 17. do you want to discuss your amendment? >> sometimes i'm reminded of a

comment to say -- you must understand a place like mississippi to understand the world. inve led the states electronic voting for overseas military in afghanistan, kuwait, as well as possibles -- as hospitals in germany. all the services or enter -- are into dispersed and we have difficult times in getting mail to those people. there is an expedited voting process. the percentages are less than half of everybody else's. mississippi law that allows for electronic voting to come back to the clerks at which time it is open and placed in their precinct ballot box. we think that is critical.

it is difficult to find people on a sand dune that can receive mail. each and every person in those countries said they wanted their ballot to count. i would propose to add at the end of the sentence "we're allowed by state law." >> that is a technical amendment. is there a second to that amendment? discussion. yes, sir. >> i want to see if they would accept a friendly amendment. electronic delivery of bal lots. so

am are calling for voting at websites. the setting of day pdf. would he accept that amendment? >> i will, thank you. >> still in his amendment to the primary amendment. >> the word "voting" be struck in place of "delivery of ballots." >> it is on your screen. it is on the screen. there has been a second to that secondary amendment. any discussion? all in favor? all opposed? the amendment is adopted. we're now back to the main amendment. any discussion on that

amendment? all right. it has been seconded. all in favor? all opposed? that amendment is agreed to. i believe that's it for the voters. anything else in the voter integrity section? . we will leave that section open. >> mr. chairman, if i may interrupt? ?ou haven't worked out >> we think we can change it to "we recognize that having a physical verification of the voting process is the best way to ensure a fair election.

we recognize that having a physical verification of the voting process is the best way to insure a fair election." >> but hold on. >> what does that replace? >> it takes out "paper ballots are." >> and everything else stays in from your original amendment? >> yes, including madison. >> you are really angling for my vote. is that now accurate on the screen/ ? is that blue? >> that is correct. >> this is a secondary amendment

that. kerby's amendment has been seconded. discussion on the secondary amendment. >> right here from oklahoma. carolyn mclarty. is that what we want or do a physical verification of the vote? >> yeah, that's good. that's fine. mr. chairman? >> hold on. kerby, have -- mr. sahi we'll give you one last time. we have another idea. are you incorporate that as part of your amended --

>> i take that as a friendly amendment. >> is that your new and then that now? >> yes, sir. r amendmentyou're a man ful fully. >> " the a physical their vacation of the vote is the best way to ensure a fair election" and the madison thing. >> is there a second? >> second that. >> any discussion on that technical amendment? >> thank you. who receives the physical verification of the vote? the voters themselves? does that not enhance the

possibility of vote selling? >> all right. i will address that through mr. kerby. do you want to enter the question -- do you want to answer that question? >> it is meant -- to go to who is counting the votes, who is verifying the count. >> speaking to the chair. >> how does the voter no that their vote has been verified if the verification is going through a counter who could not possibly know how the voter has

voted? >> mr. kerby? >> in nevada, we have sequoya machines and a print out something that you can look at it and verify. i know that is not the way it is done in every state. we're trying to get to the principle of saying we do not trust electronic voting without a paper backup. i guess maybe we should take some more time and massage this a little bit to try to come with the best way to convey that it is a philosophical thing and we are not trying to dictate procedure. it is a philosophical idea that we do not trust electronic voting without a physical backup. >> alright.

you want to clear this issue up and we will pass by and give you one more shot at it and we'll have to act. >> the machines did not allow the voter to take a piece of paper. it goes into a box that is attached to the machine. i do not think this language could be misconstrued. many states prohibit taking a camera so you could take a picture of your ballot. i would ask the staff correct a grammatical error. it should be we support the policy. i think this is fine as it is now. >> ok. mr. kerby, you are going to incorporate that technical and that into your substitute

amendment that is now on the screen, correct? >> we support the policy, yes. >> that is now your new amendment. is there a second to that amendment? ok. hold on. mr. kerby is making his secondary amendment to con-17 has identified here on the screen and that is the amendment -- the secondary amendment that we are going to act on. is there any more discussion on that amendment? all right. the question has been called. all in favor? all opposed? the question has been called and the question on the adoption of

the second degree amendment that is on the screen. all in favor say aye. all opposed? the clarifying amendment is adopted. we are now back to the main amendment of mr. kerby dealing with paper ballots. it is fully on your screen. we have to have a few comments and act. >> i support the amendment that we have a written ballot. we do have paper ballots that verify on our machines. i would encourage mr. kerby and tell them that we have had zero instances of our machines being incorrect and video have

been verified without problem. i do support the paper verification, the justice department has waived that for some mississippi cities. in each instance, they'll have been accurate. i do agree we have a paper and i will support this amendment. i disagree with the philosophy. >> ok. any discussion on this issue in your subcommittee? >> no, i think this amendment is consistent with the approach taken by the subcommittee. >> further discussion on the amended. >> i think it is important to recognize that the sensitivity towards voting was raised as a result of the vote count in the presidential election in

florida, which were paper ballots. a suggestion that paper would be the answer to any problems regarding the counting of votes, i have some concern about as the secretary of state of mississippi pointed out that these electronic voting machines have been proven to be accurate. we would all conduct most of our personal finances in banking electronically. i would just be wary of any suggestion that this solution would lead to integrity of a vote count. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to make a comment about the paper audit trail. there is a professor at johns hopkins university that used the

die bold voting machines and he hacked into the system and change the vote on a voting machine. that is why the voter verify paper audit trail is such a big issue in many states. so that you know your vote is counted a certain way and there is a way to check the vote and not just hit the recount but on the electronic machine. >> any further discussion on this amendment and we need to act. last comment. we cannot hear you. >> i'm from minnesota. >> a move and a second to the amendment. all in favor of calling the

question? the question has been called. all in favor? all opposed? ok, the amendment is adopted. ok. that closing the session voter integrity on page 4. >> i had submitted a late submission -- >> to this section? regard >> vote by mail -- regarding vote by mail. >> the body does not have it. in fromjust handed t the gentle lady of washington state.

>> is it being handed out? >> it was just given to us. it is up there right now. >> yes, mr. stearns. >> ok. >> this is page 4, line 17. after "ballots" -- is it after the word "ballot"? >> it would fall underneath where the additional amendment was added in that same paragraph in the adopted

version. >> it is after the language of the last amendment that was just adopted. is that the end of that section? >> it appeared to be after line 17. it could easily fall anywhere in that section as a separate topic, only to insure that the vote by mail states -- >> page 4, line 17. it is now on your screen. this is after the new language we just adopted. this will be at the end of line 17. this is new language being offered by miss dye and that

language is highlighted on the screen. >> i suggest it would fit better after line 13. it does not necessarily reflect the military balalot. >> that is technical. >> it will be more appropriate after line 13. >> we will adopt that as a clarifying amendment. >> what to do state and oregon state are completely vote by mail. when the ballots are cast -- the ballots are mailed to every registered voter. some people may not be capable of voting. we have had it recounts in washington states and recounts have been based on the fact that boxes of ballots have

appeared inexplicably in larger urban areas. voters in rural areas are at disenfranchise and there is no way to be sure who cast the ballots. you are not even certain if the is cast int arise your name. i would suggest that voters have no protection under a vote by mail and we cannot assure the integrity in oregon or washington and i am concerned about it. that is why i entered this language to oppose it vote by mail. >> it is properly before us. discussion. mr. kobach? nothink what she means is

vote by mail. i think she means all-hyphen mail elections. not all ballots cast by mail are problematic. i think that is what she means. >> yes, that is exactly what i mean. the states that are completely vote by mail work they have adopted no physical casting by ballots. >> the change is being made on the scene. >> is there a second? all in favor? all opposed? the clarifying amendment is adopted. we now go back to the amendment by miss dye to all states that are all-mail election. how many are there?

two? washington and oregon. >> let's not make a national trend. >> discussion on the amended amendment. mr. walker. >> this is a huge problem in the state of oregon. we have that thousands -- with that research done on voter integrity in the state of oregon. it is difficult to get records. when we have been able to verify problems, it is usually one address where hundreds of ballots go to one address and we can find them. those counties are partisan and the records are quickly destroyed. i know this is something that is moving to other states. there is discussion to go to

vote by mail and it is difficult to monitor. i ask the committee to please support this amendment. >> this appears to be a statement of principle and there is no call for action. mr. bopp? >> i support the concept of the amendment. i do not know what she means by "ballots must be considered at large." what does that mean? >> i would like to respond to that. the ballot is mailed to every voter. there are ballots in mailboxes the route to stay. those mailboxes may not have the correct person. those ballots could easily be

picked up by whomever. i feel like the ballots are at large because we do not know the intention of the recipient of the ballot, it is the correct voter or whether the voter is available to be politically manipulated. i feel the ballots are not secure. when you go to pick up a at a table, you check your name off and a person verifies your identity. not every person that receives a .allot will vote the ballot it is at large.

>> right now we're talking about two states. what the which tried to make sure the language is right? i will recommend that we bypass this for now. if we can get this in a clear form, especially if there will be some call for action. if there's not a rejection, which you discuss that? i think that is the last item in the voter integrity section, is it not? the justice department approved virginia's voter i.d. law yest erday. [applause] ok.

i think the next one i have -- that includes the voter integrity section. we believe that open for purposes of mrs. dye's. next one i have this con-1a. >> this is brian disher rahm nebraska. this was the first amendment submitted and i was using the first draft of this section when i submitted it. there was some moving around sections. this deals with the fourth amendment which is on page six, line seven. i would ask everybody to get out 1a and that is the appropriate place this should be taken up. a request the chair -- i request

the chair brings this back to the floor. >> we will defer action on that. i have no other amendments at this time to the section capt. first amendment and are first freedom on page 4 and 5. any other discussion? page five, line 15, first amendment, freedom of speech. i have no amendments to that section. >> i just submitted an amendment to that section. >> we will pass that by at this time. page five, line 26. the second amendment, we have miss galassini on the mexico

has an amendment. >> thank you. i'm from new mexico. i had submitted one and thought perhaps it might have been lost so i submitted it again. you have two in front of you, which can be combined. >> hold on just a minute. let's take a look at those to be sure -- let me get those in front of me so i can -- 3a. i did not have 1-7. 1-7.re is your

are you asking us to take is up together? they are drawn to the same section. do you want us to consider both of these? >> yes, sir. >> hold just a moment. >> which should we take up first? first.e'll take up 3a

>> line 32 after "store firearms." >> on the screen, does this show -a is?0 is this correct? >> yes, sir. >> this is just 3a.

>> we would not need both of these. we would need one or the other. at the end of line -- the continuation of line 31, " affirming the right we recognize individual rights safely and store firearms," and then you want to add "ammunition." are not those duplicative and serve the same purpose? >> i don't think so. firearms are not good without ammunition. >> are not communicating -- we are not communicating. i'm talking about your two amendments. let me ask is procedurally.

do we need both of these amendments? they accomplished different purposes. you want to add "and ammunition," essentially. >> we are just talking about 3a. >> these amendments seem to accomplish the same purpose but awarded a little differently. .'m asking you to pick one >> mr. chairman? -- 'm trying to get that there was rumored a year or two ago that the current administration wanted to have to register your admonition as well. i did not know how that would have worked.

i like to add 17 in there to say, "this includes the right to obtain and store." maybe there's a better way to write that. >> mr. chairman? let me ask you this. would it be better to say -- " this also includes the right to obtain an store ammunition without registration," so you have one concept in front of you? >> that is fine. >> you are offering that now as

the amendment? >> it is changed on the screen also. >> this also includes the right to obtain and store and the nation without registration on 3a and 17 will be withdrawn. that a man has been moved and seconded. discussion -- that amendment has been moved and seconded. hearing no discussion, all in favor? all opposed? the amendment is adopted. i have con-11, mr. kobach? are you ready for that?

>> yes, mr. chairman. there have been recent proposals coming from the far left wing of the democrat party to resurrect portions of the failed clinton gun ban including the capacity of clips and other elements that were part of that ban. congress rarely allowed that ban to expire and we shall not allow the recent incidents to allow the ban to come back one provision and a time. >> this is con-11. >> i will read it. "we condemn legislation that is intended to restrict our rights by limiting the capacity of clips or revising the bill considered clinton gun ban."

>> please raise your hand if you do not have con-11. i have a typo. "otherwise restoring." >> mr. chairman? >> everybody -- not second in yeah. yet.t's not second it "revising" b g

should be "restoring"? it has been moved and seconded that this amendment be agreed to. the amendment is now in front of us. discussion. hold on. yes, sir. >> would you accept a front and emmitt and changed the word "clip" to "magazine"? >> that's fine. you can use clips or magazines. gone aficionado's may disagree about what those terms refer to disagree.cionado's me >> are you saying the amendment to strike --

>> he wanted to add it. >> mr. kobach. >> i was suggesting to replace but mr. kobach suggested we do clips or magazine. still >> your amended -- state your amendment. >> is there a second to that amendment? moved and seconded. any discussion on that amendment? all in favor? all opposed? that amendment is agreed to and is now on the screen. discussion on the amended amendment.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. would you accept a friendly amendment to use the word "opposed" instead of the word "condemned." >> state then again through the chair? >> would you accept a friendly amendment to use the word "opposed" instead of the word "condemned"? >> the amendment would be to strike "condemned" and insert a pposed"?

the condemnation caucus votes no. ok. we have the amendment that has been twice amended and agreed to and now the discussion is on the amended amendment. . >> i oppose that. >> you oppose what? >> it has already been voted on. >> it is poorly worded. >> ok. >> it should not rhyme. [laughter] >> ok. >> south dakota. speaking >> to the amended amendment -- speaking to the amended amended. >> does it have to be "opposed"

legislation? >> is there a specific oppose legislation? >> these are all great ideas. you can take out "opposed" if you want. >> all in favor? all opposed? say "no." the clarifying amendment is adopted so we do not rhyme. would have to act on this, folks -- we have to act on this, folks. last comment. >> the capacity of clips -- "clips" to

"magazines." >> it has been moved and seconded. all in favor? all opposed? the question is whether or not the amendment should be agreed to. all in favor? all opposed? the amendment is adopted. i believe that is the last of them that we have on the second amendment section. any other discussion? that section will be closed. page six.

>> page 6, line 7 after " searches and seizures." on page six.d pa >> point of order. >> is there a con-10, mr. wallace? are you still pursuing your amendment? >> i wanted to insert online 25, "free speech zones." it is another form of censorship. >> does everybody have con-19? we are not on the screen yet.

page five, line 25. is there a second? >> i'd like to second that. >> is there any discussion on the amendment? >> i think he has addressed that. >> i think it stands on its own . t another form of censorship -- it is another form of censorship. >> i wanted to voice my support of this amendment. this is simply that happens quite a bit on college campuses. you can say what you want if you're in a far back corner of the campus where nobody walks by. >> all in favor?

all opposed? the amendment is agreed to. mr. anything else on that section? i think we're done. that section will now be closed. page 6, line 5, fourth amendment section. we have mr. buescher nebraska who has the amendment that was -- this is where you want to insert it. you have the floor. ment.have an amend "we support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted governmental intrusion it to the use of surveillance drones on u.s. soil."

the intent of my amendment is to broaden that to include more than just drones. "governmental intrusion to the use of aerial surveillance or fly overs on u.s. soil." the epa has decided to start doing flyovers over certain feed lots without announcing such. it is like spying on your own americans. i want to point that out. this is something that is important in the agricultural industry. one thing i would like to say is this language is designed not to prevent law enforcement agencies from doing surveillance because the words in there from the fourth amendment "unwarranted or

unreasonable." that is the point of the amendment. i encourage the body to consider this amendment. >> the amendment has been moved and seconded. discussion. >> this amendment is needed. the initial reports the epa was using a drones, they reusing manned aircraft. it is a good amendment. >> that is why i made the amendment. the factual inaccuracies pointed out of the general -- by the attorney general. >> any discussion on the amendment? hearing none, all a favor -- let's go to the amendment.

all in favor? all opposed? the amendment is agreed to. i do not believe there is any other amendments to the fourth amendment section. yes, ma'am. >> i have not read out the amendment. it just came to my attention. want to eliminate line 8, page youhen you're saying that want to prevent unwarranted governmental intrusion to the use of surveillance with the exception of patrolling our national borders, does that mean that you can in an

unwarranted way patrol our national borders? i am submitting that we may want to review that language. >> do you have an amendment you will drop and oppose? to get that in front of us, have that job and we will leave that section open and come back to th it. quickly. page six, line 11. mr. erickson has an amendment at the end of that section. >> this is con-4. >> there is a technical correction in the first line. the word "to" should be in

there. this is page six, line 21. there'll be an addition of a paragraph.anew >> as a clarifying amendment, " oppose any amendments to." mr. erickson. was a a pastor but i public defender. the question i frequently got was, how can you be a christian and defendant guilty people? i got a lot. one thing i thought i would never be able to do would be a public defender. as i learned more about how our constitutional rights are intentioned against the power of government, i understood the

public defender role is vital in protecting us against tyranny. great majority of our prosecutors are honorable people doing a good job to keep us safe. there are always a few that are corrupt. the authority they have that is unchecked by -- i would tell people that my rights and your rights are only as secure as those of the vileest offender. that what often fall hollow on people. whether by defining them as enemy combatants are not, the question is, who gets to decide who will be a combatant? where are the checks and balances against that power?

if you're a member of the tea party, you may be an enemy combatants. if you're a libertarian, you may be an enemy combatant. if you're a preacher, you may be an enemy combatant. we need to affirm that we support due process of american citizens. >>ok. we have had this discussion in some measure before. we'll and detained briefly discusses. is this an issue discuss? did you discuss this in the subcommittee/ >? >> that issue did not pass our subcommittee. we have had lengthy discussions on this issue in our prior sections i recommend we have a short discussion at this time.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i will allow a couple of comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we discussed is a little bit in my committee. everybody gets the due process. they get habeas corpus. they don't necessarily get released. the government has a right to detain them. i appreciate the energy and the concern for constitutional rights but i would urge a no vote.

>> i cannot call you. your name tag is upside-downi we combatants is such an interesting term. during world war ii, he was singing in an upper house, it was anzioenzio pinza taken to rikers island. whatever the amendment says has eroded away, and the eroding of liberty, this tournament from minnesota, my home state, where

i went to school, is well intentioned. it may have to be phrased differently, but what he is trying to do is we the people we are losing our liberties, and it is being done quietly and quickly under an enemy combatants. anzio pinza -- enzio pinza was not an enemy combat that. they were kept under circumstances of war, but we are not at war right now, so the imposition of the restraint of liberty is taken place. >> mr. chairman? i call the question. >> moved and seconded that the question be called. all in favor sayin aye. we have had a good robust debate. every member agrees that the due

cause is critically important. the only question is whether the nda creates mischief in the platform. i appreciate the stability in both these amendments. the question is being called. on the adoption of the amendment, all in favor of the amendment saying aye. -- all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment fails. that is the last amendment in the fifth amendment section. hearing no other discussion on the fifth amendment, that section is closed. page six, line 22, the ninth amendment. any discussion?

the forgotten amendment. that section is now closed. page six, 30, sanctity and dignity of human life, and we have an amendment, c9, which is called a technical amendment. >> this is a product of somebody not being able to read my handwriting. this and next appropriate and civil penalties on health care providers. >> out objection, that amendment will be agreed to.

ok? is there anything else? is there any other discussion on that section? >> i had seen an amendment that dealt with the issue of harm to women that was going to be introduced here. >> i have no other amendments and i am not asking for any. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, on page seven line 10 there appears to be a typo. page seven, line 10, there appears to be a typographical word "for."e err >> it should be "form."

that will be corrected. hearing no other amendment, that section will be closed, and i appreciate the good work that the committee has done. i applaud the committee's work in affirming our respect for human life. well done. page seven, line 22, respect for the flag, some of the constitution. no amendments on that section? any discussion? that section will be closed. page seven, line 29, for laws. you are recognized. >> this is an amendment that points to an additional source of foreign law. the supreme court has quoted a foreign law in interpreting our u.s. constitution -- >> we will leave this event.

going live to michigan for a campaign stop with mitt romney and paul bryan. they are just arriving. -- paul ryan. ♪ >> here they come. romney, romney, romney.

>>, ok, we got to keep cheering. to let them know. ♪ i see them. they are right in front of the boss, waiting. -- waiting in. -- waving. welcome toour best our comeback team, mitt romney,

ann romney, and congressman paul ryan. ♪

>> thank you, everybody. what a welcome. this is great. look how far back this goes. >> romney, romney. >> sisters, how are you doing? good to see you. thank you, everybody. thank you so much for coming out. thank you for standing in line, and thank you so much for what you are about to do. you are going to let this man the next president of the united states.

it is great to be back home in big ten country. i represent the west part of the western shoreline of lake michigan. you've got the sand and we have a rock. we all come from the same place. i want to tell you something. we got a big decision to make. we are going to be deciding the kind of country we want to be, the kind of country we are going to have, not just for the next four years, but for a generation.

president obama has put our nation on a path to debt, to doubt, and a nation in decline. it is up to us to get this country back on the right track and to retrieve the american idea, and that is the kind of leadership mitt romney is going to provide for our country. the problem we have had is president obama and too many politicians like him in washington have been more concerned about their next election than they have about the next generation, and that has to end. we need leaders. i see a body over here. you need to send him to the united states senate so we can turn that place around as well.

we will lead. we will honor you, michi- ganders, by giving you a choice of two teachers. we will not adopt the issues. we will take responsibility. we will not transform this country into something that it was never intended to believe. we will reapply our founding principles. over the last few years, we have seen a pretty good glimpse of what the president thinks, of what he believes, where he thinks upset -- where he thinks the country should be.

do you remember joe the plumber? it is a belief that the economic pie of life is fixed, that someone's dane it comes at someone else's loss. that is not true. we do not think that that job is to reslice the pie. we want to grow the pie so everybody has a chance at the american dream. there is no other system in the history of earth that has done more to help the poor, that has done more to give the people the right to rise, to give -- and we do not want to replace that. we want to renew that.

remember four years ago when he was talking to a bunch of donors in san francisco, and he said people from states like ours, we like to cling to our guns and religion. i just have one thing to say. this catholic deer hunter is guilty as charged and proud of it. that is who we are. or how about what he gave the other day in virginia. we can probably all say it together. no wonder our economy is where it is. no wonder 23 million americans are struggling to find work. no wonder unemployment has been above 8% for 42 months.

9% here. no wonder nearly one in six americans are in poverty today, the highest rate we have seen in a generation. ae president's notion of government-centered society with a government-driven society, is not work. it is not working in europe, and it will not work here, and the winner we need to get back on track is mitt romney, and that is why we are going to get the country where it needs to be. all a the president cannot run on his failed record of leadership, and so he will try to divide us, distort, and distract, demagogue to try to get people to vote for him by default. we are not going to fall for

that, and neither are you. we will give the country an alternative vision. we will give the country a choice of features that shows and exactly how we can reaffirm our country. that is why i am so proud to stand with this man, a man who meeting this moment in history. a moral compass, a vision for the future, and the ability, the experience, the character and integrity to execute that vision. ladies and gentlemen, that man, with that experience, with that integrity, is the man standing next to me. his name is mitt romney, president of the united states of america.

>> the thank you. thank you. what a guy, huh? quite a vice president he is going to be. what a welcome. ou have touched ann's and my hearts. wonderful to be at this cider mill and ordered, the have you welcome us on a friday at noon time. it was not easy getting out of work today, and i appreciate you being here to say hi to us. it brings a tear to my eye. it makes us recognize how important you feel this election is. i brought with me to people i am

very attached to. one is the one i have been in love with for my whole life, it seems, and i saw ann in elementary school. she was in the second grade when i was in the fourth grade. when she was a sophomore, i noticed again, and this time i paid a lot of attention. we went to a party at a friend boss' home, and she came with someone else. i went to him and i said, i live closer to ann than you do. how about i give her a ride home for you? sensing i was giving him a favor, i gave her a ride home, and we have been going steady ever since. please say hello to my sweetheart, ann romney.

>> hello, michigan. i love coming to a place where i put up my hand and everybody knows what that means. mitt and i grew up here, and this is a special place for us, and we want to have a big w next to michigan in november. i have to say, when i got on the stage and i did not appreciate how many people were here, i got quite choked up. it is amazing. it is amazing that people in michigan have not forgotten the promise of america and the father and mytt's

father who made their living here, and who came here. both of our fathers came here and made their livelihoods here, and they came from nothing. we know we offer that promise to the next generation, and that is why i get such a response from so many women across the nation who say to me, number one, i am praying for you, ann. i love that. number 2, it is like please itell mitt he has got to save the country. we are going to save the country for your children so they can have the same promise we had as children. i feel as though we are standing on crape shoulders coming to michigan, knowing that george romney is an institution in this state. how much we love that man, and how i owe so much of our life to

the example he gave of service. we're standing on his shoulders today, and we will make michigan and george romney pratt, and i cannot wait for you to hear how mitt lead america to a better place. thank you so much. >> she is quite a woman. she will be quite a first lady, i tell you that. our hearts today are touched by people i know are suffering. you heard there was a shooting in new york city at the empire state building, one person killed, others injured. the first responders that were there, we appreciate their service and the dedication, and that is true all over the country. we love and appreciate their sacrifice, and willingness to help our fellow americans.

an oakland county executive was in a terrible auto accident, still in very serious treatment, our prayers go to him, and also the driver of his vehicle, oks and hisude brokk family. i love being home, where but the bus were born. -- where both of us were born. no one asked to see my birth certificate. they know this is where we were born and raised. we went to elementary school together, and we went to high school together. we were the cranbook cranes. could we not do better than that?

it feels like coming home to see this beautiful state and to see our friends here. it is been quite an experience to watch my dad and mom in their campaign. i got to visit every county in michigan. 83 counties. i went to county fairs. the people of the state responded. they did not always vote party- line. they voted for the person who thought they could get michigan working again. and my dad did, and i will. i have had such an extraordinary experience going across the country seeing the passion of the american people. we are a patriotic people. i see it sons and daughters in far-off places, i have seen men and women from the state and my state now of massachusetts serving our land. i appreciate those who have it

in liberation. those in the armed services, please raise your hands and be recognized. thank you, ma'am. thank you, sir. this is a time when america faces an extraordinary challenges. iran is seeking to -- the world. the economy is to and by competition that is global bi jobs that have left, technology that is being developed by other nations. we face extraordinary challenges in government, where year after year politicians have been spending more than we have taken in. these challenges we can overcome in one way -- by coming together and being united. it is time to have a president that police in uniting the american people, not dividing the american people.

we will be having a convention in tampa. i am told the weather may be a little iffy there. we will be there. we will not just talk about platitudes, small things, we will talk about these big challenges and how we will overcome them. we will talk about the soul of america, what makes this nation and exceptional. we will do everything in our power to bring people together, republicans, democrats, and independents, to understand that our way is the only way for all americans, for the richest and poorest, and everyone in between. this president tried. i'm convinced he tried. he was heading in the wrong

direction is the problem. i saw someone outside the zone here that had a sign that said four more years, and i felt like stopping and saying, you want four more years of 8% unemployment? you want four more years of record numbers of foreclosures and declining home values? you want four more years of trillion-dollar deficits to pass on to your kids? you want four more years of business by gephardt to hire people? do you want four more years of government becoming more and more interested in your lives and businesses? i do not want four more years of what we have, do you? i want to get america on a different track, of strength and vitality. what i have done is watched the leaders of america's past.

the founders had it right when they looked and recognized what would make this nation powerful was not a government under a king or these special advisers in washington that will tell us how to live our lives, how to build our enterprises. instead, by letting individuals pursue japanese -- pursue happiness in their own ways, which would create the most powerful country in the history of the world. it is the free american people that make the nation is, not the government. paul said that, he said something the president said, and in part because its so revealing. it revealed something about his views on america that is quite

extraordinarily unusual and a departure from america's down the principles. the founders understood that individuals pursuing their dreams are what make our country go, not the government telling us what to do. they recognize that our rights came from the crater, not the government. those rights include it life and liberty and the pursuit of japanese. i have -- pursuit of happiness. i met at people who did build their business. i met people who got promotions at work, and they aren't that themselves. i met a young people who made the honor roll, people, boys scouts, who got eagle scouts. well-founded on the principle of

individual liberty and greatness. we celebrate achievement and accomplishment. this idea that government knows better than free people out to lead america is wrong, so we will take america on a course that is consistent with that set by founders. we will restorewe will keep ameg city on a thief hill -- on the hill. [applause] a there are five things that paul and i are going to do, five things that will get this economy going. i want to see michigan taking off again with huge job growth and rise in take-home pay. i appreciate the work being done by your governor. he is making michigan once again a friendly place for small business and entrepreneurs and innovators. i want to take some of the things he is doing and put them

in place in washington by doing five things. number one, we agreed to take advantage of our energy resources and in north america energy-independent. [applause] we have coal, 250 years of it, natural gas that is cheap, oil, nuclear, wind, solar. we're going to take advantage of those energy resources, and that will create 3 million to four million jobs, 1 million in manufacturing. number two, we're going to make sure that our people have the skills they need to succeed, that we have the right kind of training programs for our adults. and we have finally fixed our schools and and put the kids first, teachers first, and the unions behind. [applause] number 3, we're going to have trade that works for america. look, a trade is good for us.

it creates jobs. it helps raise in comes. opening up new markets in latin america, really expanding their. one thing i want to make sure we also do -- that is when people cheat like china has been cheating, will crack down on them and not let it continue. [applause] number four, you're not going to get entrepreneurs to take their life savings to open a business or get a business that decides to build a new facility here in michigan or somewhere else in this country or maybe even a big foreign devaney to come here to build a big research center unless they know we're not going to become greece or italy or spain. they want to know that america is willing to deal with our financial issues, so i will do something politicians have talked about for a long time and and paul ryan has shown the courage to do -- as are going to work hard to find america to a balanced budget by cutting the deficit and getting it to zero.

[applause] number 5, i am going to champion small business. i want to help entrepreneurs and innovators to build their businesses and add more jobs. 65% of the jobs created in the last 15 years in america were created by small business. i want to help these small businesses. right now, the president wants to raise the tax on small business from 35% to 40%. that would kill jobs. did not raise taxes on any american. keep our taxes competitive, get them down. make small business the driving engine of economic growth. that is number one on small business, taxes but also for small business, we have to make sure that regulations are up to date and that regulators see their job as encouraging small business, not crushing it. big companies are usually able to deal with all the regulations because they have hundreds of lawyers, but small business

cannot. we have to get regulations pared down to size for small business. no. 3, that big cloud has been hanging over small businesses -- we have got to repeal and replace obamacare with something that gets the cost of health care under control. [applause] if we do those things from those five things, energy, skills to succeed, education, opening up new markets and cracking down on the cheaters in trade, finally getting ourselves to a balanced budget and an opening an era of encouraging small business -- we do those five things and and you are going to see america come charging back economically. we are on because but -- we are on the cusp of an economic rebound of the world will be surprised with what they see in america and in michigan.

we can compete with anybody in the world. we will compete. we will win. and by the way, if we do those five things, we will create 12 million jobs and finally see a rise in take-home pay. from our standpoint, we do not want four years of what we just had. we won four years of what i just described, a brighter, more prosperous america with a strong and prosperous future. [applause] >> [crowd chanting "mitt"] >> this counts. this accounts. paul mentioned it. their 23 million americans today out of work. 23 million. 8% of our people are unemployed. about 15% are either unemployed

or stopped looking for work or cannot get full-time jobs that need them. half the kids coming out of college cannot get a job or a job that is consistent with a college degree. half our kids. one out of six americans has fallen into poverty. the gap between the haves and have-nots have gotten larger under this president, small -- not smaller. this president's policies have not worked. it is important get america on the right track so we can get those people back to work. so our kids will know that when they finish school, they have got a good job waiting for them. so we pull people out of poverty and build a bigger middle-class with rising take-home pay. there's another reason this is important, and that is because a strong america is not only good for americans, it is good for the world, good for liberty, good to preserve liberty. i was in great britain some time ago and one of the leaders said

to me this, he said, if you're lucky enough to be elected president and did you travel around to foreign capitals, you will undoubtedly have rehearsed for you all of the mistakes they think america is making. but please do not ever forget this, the one thing we all fear the most is a weak america. america's strength, strength in our homes and values and families, strength and our economy and strength in our military, america's strength is the best ally peace has ever known. and paul ryan and i commit to you that every day in office, we will make americans strength our priority. we will do everything we can to strengthen our homes and values, to strengthen our economy, and to keep our military so strong that no one would ever think of testing the might of the united

states of america military. [applause] that is our commitment to you. now i need your commitment to me and to us. i need you to go out and find at least one person who voted for barack obama and get them to change their mind and come to vote for us. [applause] we have got -- i do not know, 5000 or 10,000 people here. 5000 or 10,000 votes than they did different by didn't -- in michigan. i want michigan to vote for romney and ryan. if michigan does that, he and i will be the next president and vice president of the united states and america will stay strong and prosperous and free and the hope of the earth. thank you very much. thank you, michigan. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

>> mitt romney in a campaign stop in michigan. a newspaper is reporting that the republican party will break with tradition and nominate mitt romney on the first day of the republican national convention. that vote is normally held a day before the nominee access the nomination. mitt romney will give his acceptance speech on thursday. that speech will be broadcast live by the major tv networks. on monday, there will be a speech by ann romney. that will not be broadcast. there are a number of reasons why republicans may want to lock in the nomination early in the rig. hurricane isaac is one of those concerns. it could hit florida on monday, the start of the convention. we will have live coverage of that convention beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span until the gavel comes down each night.

♪ for my time with no regrets close to my destination

tired, frail, and aching waiting patiently for the sun to set and when its done at believe that i will yell at from that mountain high i was born free i was born free i was born free i was born free and i will bow to shining seas and on me te god's grace i was born free i was born free born free oh oh oh oh

oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> on a saturday night ♪ ♪

♪ >> you know i gotta hit the road first i drink then i smoke gotta make the midnight show get up every but is gonna move their feet get down at everybody's gonna lose their seat ♪ fast down at 95 hit top speed but i'm still moving much too slow i feel so good i'm so alive

i hear my song playing on the radio it goes to get up everybody's gonna move their feet and get down at everybody's gonna leave their seat ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ > > you gotta lose your min in detroit rock city

12:00 i gotta wrought there is a truck ahead at lights staring at my eyes oh my god no time to turn i got to live because i know i'm gonna die why? get up everybody's gonna move their feet get down get up everybody's gonna move their feet get down ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ life is a high way i want to ride it all night long if you're going my way i am going to drive it all night long through all these cities and all these towns and in my blood and all-around

i love now like i love you then and this is the road and these roads are the hands from mozambique to the minute this night's call me when the light comes in just tell them we're survivors life is a highway i wanna ride it all night long if you're going my way i wanted drive it all night long gimme gimme yeah life is a highway i want to ride it all night long if you are going my way i want to drive it all night long there was a distance between you and i

am misunderstanding once but now we lifted in a the eye oooh yeah there ain't no load it that i cannot hold the road is so rough this i know i will be there when the light comes in just tell them we're survivors life is a highway i wanna ride it all night long if you are going my way i want to drive it all night long

gimme gimme life is a highway i wanna ride it all night long if you're going my way i want to drive it all night long gimme gimme gimme life is a highway i wanna ride it all night long all night long baby if you're going my way i want to drive it all night long all night long ♪ ♪

♪ sing a song about the heartland the only place i feel at home sing about the way a good man works until the daylight is gone to sing the rain on the roof on

a summer night where they still no wrong from right sing a song about the heartland sing a song about my life ♪ >> wrapping up main with mitt romney, his wife, and presidential running mate. this is taking place in congress township, michigan. the state is leaning democratic in a number of recent polls. a stop tomorrow in ohio. our countdown to the conventions continues until our gavel-to- gavel coverage starting monday of the republican convention in the democratic convention starting september 4. every minute, every speech, live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. featured speakers include ann romney, chris christie on tuesday, congressman paul ryan delivers his vice-presidential acceptance speech wednesday. thursday night, a presidential nominee mitt romney. use our online convention hub to

watch web exclusive video feeds, create and share video clips, add your comments and connect with other viewers. all at c-span.org/campaign in2012. >> my brothers got last night, yeah and set a watched the debate on c-span -- you did great. you got your ass kicked by lee rice. [laughter] [applause] where is he? [applause] man. [applause] what a gentleman. what a gentleman. what a pleasure, what it delight it has been to debate them a dozen times.

this guy elected. [applause] >> he said it along the way and it is true, we made each other better candidates. i cannot thank him enough. like i say, no one, no one could have been more cordial, no one could have been more gracious, no one could have been more articulate regarding libertarian ideals and beliefs. >> later tonight, we will show you more speeches from third- party candidates like libertarian nominee geary johnson. we will show your marks from the constitution party, a green party, and reform party conventions. if you are voting for a third- party candidate this year, log onto our facebook page and let us know who and why, and and we will read some of your comments on the air tonight. >> tonight on c-span2, a discussion on u.s.-canada

relations, border security, energy, and environmental issues. remarks from the u.s. ambassador to canada and canadians -- canadian ambassador to the u.s. 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. after the, the former head of the british intelligence services delivers a speech on radical figures and works of fiction. the first woman to be appointed director general of mi5 and the first jews identity was made known to vote, -- -- and the first whose identity was made it known to the public. the annual summit in chicago of young political leaders, including elected officials and staffers to discuss the opportunities and challenges of being young and working as part of the letters that a process. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. i am the politics reporter for the huffington post. based in the district of columbia. the author of the next generation of elected officials

and their effect in american politics. my pleasure to welcome you here this morning for what i hope is a very exciting, lively, entertaining, and educational session on young elected officials and young legislative staffers. we have a very diverse and dynamic panel of both legislators, partisan staffers, and a nonpartisan staffer here today. i would like to think the staff coordinating committee and the young professionals program here for hosting today's panel discussion. i want to start off with a little bit of background on the topic, just to help lead into today's discussion and then throw it to our panelists. young elected officials are defined as 35 years and under. you know, looking at -- when i came up with the idea for the book about six years ago, it came from the fact that a lot had been written about why someone may be in their 20's or

maybe even a teenager runs for elected office. but that is about it. you get the quake, almost -- you get the quirky story of the young guy who runs for office. that is it to you and i get anything about why they are running, who they are, what impact they have on public policy, what drives them, what motivates them. wending i have noticed is a lot of -- one thing i have noticed is a lot of people -- young people that run for office and choose to get involved, a lot of the reasons they decide to do it is -- they just say i will do it. that is the drive on why i chose to write the book about this topic -- i will do it. no one else has discussed this. i want to touch on very quickly a couple of quick paths. not only were 13 presidents in the -- started as young elected officials. in 2008, three and four of the

major party candidates for president and vice president started as young elected officials. president obama was in his 30's when elected to the illinois senate. vice-president joe biden was in his 20's when he was elected to county council in delaware. 29 when elected to the u.s. senate. sarah palin was in her 20's when she was elected to city council in alaska. there is a wide variety of states -- you see a lot of young people running for state legislatures and date early age, especially in the midwest and states like missouri. one of our panelists is from missouri, actually. others that do not have term limits, like illinois or my home state of new jersey, you start and a younger age. i want to point out that there is one district i have found incredibly fascinating. it is a multi-member district. so it has one senator and two house members from it. and at one point and tell, i

think sometime in 2009, every single legislator from the district was under the age of 30. what stopped it is senator schneider had a birthday. then i think one of the other members had it. i think a district this year -- there are also a lot of people in their 20's running. one incumbent is actually hear from north dakota. maybe the old guy in his late 20's, not sure on that. that is -- that district is interesting because the university of north dakota dominates it. one last thing, one thing i found in interviewing over 90 current and former young elected around the country is four things that sort of drive them. drive them to run for office. one is the person wants to make politics their career and says i want to be governor, i want to be senator, i want to be president, and decides to start running at a young age.

the second, it will be interesting to see what our staffers have to say -- the person who starts off as a legislative staffer primarily in a partisan staff or on a personal staff who then decides that i will run for office, almn their career path. there are several examples of this, the minority leader of the new jersey senate for the new york assembly, the son of a politician. that family driver drives them to run for office. the last one is idealism, someone they want to go out there, they fill the one to make change and that is how they're doing it. three that come to mind are immediately three iraq and afghanistan war veterans, and there are multiple who have run for office, but the three i

interview from my book were driven by of liberalism -- idealism. without any further ado, i will quickly introduce our panelists and throw it to them. starting from my left, the minority leader of the arkansas house john burris, tisha geiser , bryen johnson, jennifer esser, and clem smith from the missouri house of representatives. to start things off, maybe we could start with representative pérez, mehdi quickly introduce yourself, what drove you -- rep burris. >> thank you. i am state representative from arkansas is elected in 2008 and going into my last term.

i think we will be talking a lot about term limits. and arkansas, we have strict term limits. you're limited to 32-year terms. i was elected at age 23, going into my last term unopposed, currently 26. i served as the house minority leader, which is the republican party in arkansas, a position i recently left in march after two years. very willingly gave that up and passed on to another person. it was a very enjoyable position. it is something i enjoyed greatly, but a job he only wanted to for two years and you're ready to move on. it was an interesting time to be in arkansas, certainly as the republican leader of the caucus, and how it affects things on the state level. i'm sure we will discuss that more. that is a brief biography for me as far as what may be run for office, i was thinking the

moderator hit on it. if you want to be president by 40 comedy have to start early. i think most young people run for office because there must driven in the way. people are more wanting to get involved including at a younger age. i was a manager at wendy's in college. i got to know the state representative from where i went to college. i worked there for a manager for a couple of years, got to know each other. he came through one day getting food for his kids, said, let's stay in touch and handed me his card now he is in the senate. as he was terming out of the

house, so was the legislator in my district. he convinced me to move back to my home town and run but i was fortunate to have support from older people like him and in my district to make it possible. in short, the reason i ran for office was simply someone serving, convincing meet it was a worthwhile goal and you can do it at a young age. that was the main driver for me. >> my name is tisha geiser, i am an assistant chief clerk in the alaska house. i have been doing that job since 2005. i got my first job working for the legislature in 2004 at 23. i was a page for the senate finance committee. i fell into that job because after graduating from college with a political science degree, i found myself in juneau, alaska for the summer, working with a cruise ship industry in having a good time rid lo and behold, it is the state capital.

i thought it might be interesting to try working for a session. i found that first session to be very exciting, over bombing. the legislative process was far more complex than might government classes in college led me to believe. i really enjoy the work i do. i feel like i'm well-suited for it. it has been compelling. i have not wanted to leave yet. >> good morning. my name is bryen johnson, a member of the senate democratic staff in springfield. i worked as a member -- as the director of the creative services division. we handle a lot of eb stuff into quite a few things with social media and member websites and things like that. i got into politics in college. i am an sicu graduate. ipad to work at the public policy institute with paul simon.

-- i got to work at the public policy institute with paul simon. he gave in my introduction to politics. i took an internship in springfield in 2004, and have done many things on staff since. i worked with members on their communications needs and things like that, but there has been this big push toward turning our efforts and our focus toward the web. it is been a great thing to be a part of that. we're constantly looking for different ways to improve ourselves and make sure the people know the good things members are doing. it is a pleasure to be here. >> good morning. my name is jennifer esser. thank you to being -- for everyone being here and being invited to be on the panel. i began my legislative career in wisconsin state senate working

for our caucus staff, then went on to work for senate majority leader, which began my tenure into leadership. then i went on to work for the senate president as his chief of staff. most recently, i worked for senator pam galloway, a freshman lawmaker. and for still, she had to resign due to family health issues -- unfortunately, she had to resign due to family health issues. now i am working for the majority leader in the house. i was working for political campaigns in high school and into college. i am looking forward to the discussion today. thank you very much. >> thank you all for being here rid i am clem smith and i represent the 71st district. a little bit about myself, i was elected in 2010. i'm coming to the end part of my first term and i have an election tomorrow for my second

term. [laughter] good thing i was unopposed. a lot of good work that first term. i have the pleasure of representing a very diverse district in st. louis county when it comes to economics, racial diversity. it is a wonderful thing, a wonderful place. how i got into politics actually was -- i don't want to go that far back, but i will start with it was through the labor union. i worked for christless -- chrysler fruit many years. there was a political action committee that started working on different campaigns and was volunteering. i thought, this is pretty fun. i was promoted to the point i was lobbying for the united autoworkers. i moved from st. louis city to st. louis county. a young elected official, very

ambitious and decided he wanted to run for senate, so there was an opening. the lot of context and made through lobbying and just being an activist, that opportunity was provided for me to run for state rep. i am here now and i really love the job. > why don't we stay with clem for the first question, as i know there's a lot of this in your city but also in madison, little rock, juno, and springfield. in what ways are young professional legislators thinking outside the box in challenging the way the legislature has always done business? >> one-term i learned when first elected was, it has always been this way. that is something i'm not accustomed to. it is always been the, why has it been this way? we would go through sessions and all of a sudden, the last two weeks we are rushing to get

everything done, and i'm still trying to work my way through and that knowledge to see why that is now. a lot of the younger people there, and intel are not really happy with that. they're like, where he we here all last -- where we hear all session to try to cram it in the last two weeks? you may have bills that have not been thoroughly debated or discussed on the floor. you have a small grouping of individuals that would like to see that change. a lot is with ideas, too. it was because of term limits i believe i am in the legislature now. we had a lot of people that were there for a long time, knowledgeable individuals. but when they pretty much had to move on, we had the opportunity to run for office and get their and i guess bring new ideas. it is a changing world, changing time. not said what we're doing is better than them, but bringing a new perspective i think helped with some of the legislation

being filed and to some of the ideas. >> i agree with that. i will call them the new generation of people, the millennial spread there is a vast difference from when i started my career then a co- worker of mine. for me, i worked my way up. i do not think people have the time or patience anymore to do that. they want to get involved, make a change quickly and move on to the next thing. i think it is shaking up the legislature. young lawmakers as well, not in it to be career politicians or career staffers. i think it is a really good thing. >> i think i agree with these

wo. from my perspective, we are challenging a lot of the way we communicate from old members are for members from the past years. i think some members believe in the less is more model, in no, there is -- in the way we communicate today, people want to know information and knows it now. they want to know everything there is to know about that 30 seconds ago our job on staff is to make sure we provide that information to the people who are seeking that. we have been working with members and trying to get them to buy into to what people are interested in, how they get their news these days. i think in 2006, there were like 44 correspondents, news correspondents in the capital, now i think we're down to 26.

people are getting their news on the internet these days. we as a staff are trying to turn ourselves into a news service. my boss is in the back, named john paterson. he worked for "the daily herald." we talk about senate democrat news service, sdns. that is what we want to turn ourselves into, the place people come from. i think we're challenging ways of how we transfer information. it is just the way that people get their information now. that is the way we are challenging the old way of doing things. >> i totally agree with bryen johnson. in the legislature, the public is demanding greater and easier access to information. i think both young professionals and young staffers working to

accommodate those demands, in fact, one of the women in my office, and it's a maybe our foremost innovator is also the oldest member, however, i think as an professionals, we are particularly well-suited to meet this challenge because we are ambitious and we're comfortable with technology. i also think we really welcome new approaches. i think for better or worse, we're not as constricted by traditional boundaries and hierarchy, so we're interested in sharing information and want to find new ways to do things. i also think we have less experience, but this makes is better suited to adapt to the future because we are more objective and not bound to the way things have always been done. i think those are always the lashkar ways we're challenging the way things have been done i have a strong desire to see my work product stay relevant and fresh, so that takes work.

that is what i think. >> thank you. i agree with everything that has been said. from serving in the legislature perspective, i sometimes joke and it is a jest, but whatever skills i have in the legislature, i benefit from being so young because sometimes the legislature can be like high school. if you're 60, it is hard to go back and relearn all those things that made high school high school. the fact it was a reason for me, makes it a little easier to deal with some of the things that might normally fresh to people serving in office. in arkansas, we have a host of young members. two are here in the audience today. we have a very high percentage of our members under the age of 40, certainly, and i think the perspective for myself, at least, i would not trade for the

world. i think it helped me tremendously being young. your expenses are what you make of it. i see a lot of older members who come in, a successful businessman as 60 years old, you don't understand why you do not get to be in charge from day one. sometimes it is a struggle. pretty basic rule i like to live by is, whenever your stereotype is, do not play into it. being young, i try to listen more than i talk. i tried to be accommodating. i think it allowed me to hopefully to the position i do serving well, like minority leader. when you're in a building, for us, 135 egos, 135 people that think they should be in charge to cause other people around, those are the top of personalities you sometimes encounter. being young and willing to step back and hopefully try to listen, which i struggle was sometimes, but having a perspective of knowing you don't

know everything is sometimes helpful being able to commit it. >> as someone who uses legislative websites, frequently, on a daily basis, i appreciate them being upgraded and more user-friendly, easy to find stuff. bryen johnson, i think there's still a great place for online media outlets. >> i would agree there. we're just trying to compete with you. that's all. >> i welcome the competition. tisha geiser, what are the biggest challenges you face as a young professional working in the legislature? what techniques have worked to help overcome these challenges? >> i think knowing how and when to initiate change in a culture that really values tradition, history, custom, president. i have kind of developed an approach to this over time,

which is to approach it first of all gradually. i think it is easy for us coming into our new roles or been fresh and then, we see lots of things we would like to change. i think it is not always a good idea to initiate change midsection -- mid-session or in the heat of the moment. one of my jobs is working on the house journal, which is of the floor proceedings. the second week of the session, i thought it might be a good idea to change the way we reflect bill's sponsors in the journal. but it was quickly decided by myself and my peers that probably not a good time to do that for consistency and clarity say. just hold on to the idea and talk about it during the interim rea it is important to make change collectively. it is important for us to seek the advice and perspective of

our co-workers who have maybe more experience to offer and a different perspective, and hopefully to get their buy and in the change we want to initiate, even though there is the risk they may not get behind it. that is a risky have to take, i suppose. i think it is important to remember when we are proposing a change, to do it respectfully. i work with some women who have spent their entire careers working in the legislature for 20 or 30 years. i will come with my original idea and only to find out it is not original, but tried seven years ago and did not work out so well. i think approaching them with the change needs to be done respectfully and with a little bit humility. hopefully, keeping those things in mind. there can be a balance found, preserving the past and the way things have done, but also adapting to the future and moving forward. >> as far as challenges --

>> challenges you face as a young professional. >> i think patients is one that young professionals have a tough time with. a lot of times when you start working in the legislature and you get a first job in your eager to make that change write off the jump, a year and you want to be doing different things and getting your legislation passed, you weigh your member to be on the front stage communicating -- you want your member to be on the front stage communicating on a big issue. but also think as a young professional, some folks i've seen do not have the patience to withstand those beginning years. things may not move as fast as you want them to. i think that is one of the challenges that we face as confessionals. i think part of dealing with

that is just being measured in your expectations. that is what i try to preach to the younger staff. we have to be measured in our expectations and we made changes and we move forward slowly, but take those successes in and know you're doing something good. >> i would agree with both. i think, for me, i was mentored very -- i was fortunate to be mentored by a number of colleagues -- the senate or work for, at the vast majority of my career, it has been a traditional body. they do not take kindly to people coming in abruptly to shake things up. i did take the time to get to learn the member or get to know the members and learn the policy before i began to really assert myself. i think having respect of the members and the buying in right there makes it much easier to sell your ideas.

i've had the opportunity to mentor a number of my colleagues, and that is the first thing i say, "sit back, get to know the members, get to know the colleagues, and you'll do much, much better." it does not take as long as people think. there is a lot of impatience with young professionals, but take the time and make the investment and it is something no one will regret. >> it has been quite a few challenges with may, one is people were getting -- people should already taken seriously. you should not have to prove you're serious about what you're trying to do, serious about being a legislator. i think that is one of the problems with me, is people thinking like i am already supposed to be and the box read your younger, you are black, you're supposed to do whatever the black caucus tells you to do. instead of getting to know me as a person, or even other

individuals being, i don't know, you win an award in some is like, "i have been here 10 years and never got that award." little things, high-school things like you said, still do happen. it is like the can. in a position when you want to do something bold. like "wait until you see this." is going to be good for the people, so sometimes you get a little hate from older members or people who have been in the legislature longer than you. people look at you like you don't know what you're talking about. someone as tells you, "a, b, c, and the." i'm not pulling this out of the sky, this comes from a field i have worked in. add is getting people to understand you are serious about this, that it is no joke. we're not looking at this like it is "west wing" you have it on for 30 minutes of play politician. we are serious about it pretty

clear here to make a difference. >> yes, and on the policy side, i would wake up every morning getting ready during the session getplay "you can't always what you want" and then followed by "the gamblers." is very true when you're talking about a policy perspective, especially in the minority party any of the democratic governor or governor of the opposing party, and have all the things you want to do and you have to push that line as much as you can, then realized yet the best position thought possible and make a deal permit the compromise, however you want to put it, but realize when you have done the job as the loyal opposition and knowing when to take we have affected policy on a level you're supposed to. that was always difficult. from a personal, as i said,

there are stereotypes. the funny thing to me, it is seems older members can get away with things younger members cannot. that is true, even though it may not be the same, but there is always different standards. if you're a female or minority legislators, or younger, too. the older member can wear jeans and ugly white tennis shoes to committee meeting and no one says anything, but if i did, there would say, "john does not take his job seriously." there are things you can be grudge or accept them rid they are facts of life the matter what profession your in. instead of being better, accepted as the way the world is and probably always will be. don't let them become a hindrance in the way you do your job. do those little things that people like to make issues about, and then just do your best where it matters. >> jennifer, what motivated you

to get into public service at a young age? or what motivated you to run for office? >> if we go back to your introduction with the four reasons, mine was a combination of idealism plus i really did want to run but i had my whole past basically laid out. i get the undergrad, work in the capital a few years, go to law school and run. i made the decision rather quickly there really wasn't what i wanted to do, run for office. once i was there, i felt i was getting to serve the public in a different way. i really appreciated what i could do as a staffer to help my boss at the time to make a change, be it from a public policy standpoint or helping constituents. i felt extremely fulfilled in that role. i no longer see the need to run for legislative office.

but i am grateful to my roots in the campaign that really motivated me. i think he mentioned how much fun campaigns are to work on the people you get to meet. it is or was an absolute -- it was an absolute invaluable experience for me. >> it started when i was younger. my father, there was a deparle store in st. louis where black people were spending money there but were not being hired. the naacp and other organizations put together a march. my dad came home and got the three boys and said, "your coming with me." i don't know what i marching about until later on in life. [laughter] fast forward, i am a teenager, 16, i think 17, i am watching tv. i see the st. louis board of aldermen debating on public access, debating a curfew that was going to affect me.

they thought the curfew would curb crime and all this bad stuff and put kids back in the classroom or whatever they thought it was going to do. they show the gallery and no one is in it. i'm thinking, this guy who does not know me is about to make a decision about how i'm going to live. i was not comfortable with that and have never been comfortable with that, i have learned. those were the sparks or what ever. it later grew when i started working with the legislative committee with the uaw local i was working with recruit and grew. i was never thinking, i want to run for office, because when you're working on a campaign, you can say things that when your elected you cannot say. i am like that, you know? i like to speak my mind. sometimes i have to filter it now. i was perfectly comfortable working next to the man, not wanting to be the man. i got a call when i moved into that area saying, "you should run."

it happened. it was not something i sought to do. i was working my 925 but i still do now when i'm not serving in the legislature. it was that sparked early on of nobody can represent me or bring my perspective like i can. since being in the legislature, through making the decision process that "i am going to run," it was saying, "there is nobody like me there." i am a working guy of average intelligence, but have something to bring to the table. i wanted to be there. i did not feel like the people up there were representing what i wanted. my perspective of my view of the population. instead of talking about it, i was like, let's run his campaign and i will do something about it. >> mine was in college.

when i went there, and wanted to be a reporter. i was like, this is going to be great. then i started taking political science classes. i took a class called "politics in the media." it was like a blend of two worlds that i'm doing now. anyway, hosted by this guy named mike lawrence. he was the press secretary for the former governor. after that class, he gave me the opportunity to work at the i would literally sit there in entry phones. it was amazing, the people that called. one day i was sitting at the front desk and it was howard dean during the whole thing. he was calling to talk to paul simon about it.

i picked up the phone one day and it was oprah winfrey. it was crazy. one of the things i did was file all of this correspondence. he got correspondence from heads of state. an amazing array of individuals. he always said, it only takes one person to make a change. that sounds really pie in the sky. this guy could do it. he was paul simon. he really inspired me. that is what kind of got me involved in this and gave me that idealism. now going to the legislature, my idealism is tempered a bit. i am not paul simon, but one day i will work for another paul simon or somebody like him. >> like i mentioned earlier, i graduated with a degree in

political science. i was interested in international politics and working for a non-profit. i thought myself in juno. i found myself working for the legislature. partly, it was timing. after spending one session there, i feel like i got to be addicted. it is a dynamic work environment. the job i do is similar and constant session by session. there are so many things that are changing all the time. for a number of years, i've worked seasonally. i worked during the legislative session and for a young person, that was appealing to me, to have that variety in my life that accommodate my lifestyle well. overall, i found the senate a great hit. >> as far as what motivates the person, what motivated me to

work for office was a common theme that we all appreciate. i believe in luck. it is also putting yourself in the position to take advantage of that. for me, it is being on the right spot on the field when the ball is on hold -- fumbled. when i speak to young people of high-school age, i try to emphasize what i firmly believe has allowed me to do what i do, which is surrounding yourself with the right people. friends are like elevators. they can take you up or down, but they will take you somewhere. surrounding yourself with someone who is a mentor. surrounding yourself with people who want to help and can help and trying to be helpful in the process. it usually leads to opportunities in the public

service or elective office or anything else. the people around you make that happen the most. youhy don't we start with on this question. someone in high school or college came up to you and said, i want to run for office, or i want to work in public-service. what advice would you give them. ? what would your response be? >> if someone asked me -- told me they want to work for the legislative staff, i would say, if you are looking for a unique experience, you are looking in the right place. no other place do you get to be next to legislators and talk to them, not just about what policy we are working on. you get to become friends with these legislators and have a relationship with them. that is one thing, working the late nights -- of course,

everybody on this panel knows about that. working with interest groups and trying to get the best results. it is definitely something that is an extremely unique experience in no -- and something you will get in no other job in your life. i would tell them that if they are looking for a unique work experience, if they like politics, then they are looking in the right place. >> i would absolutely encourage anyone to work in the legislature or run for office. lawmaking is an honorable profession. i think it has been run through the mud and lawmakers have been test ties and i think it is unfair. there are so many -- lawmakers have been chastised and i think it is unfair. they have done so many things to -- from passing monumental legislation to helping constituents in ways nobody ever

talks about. it has been a privilege for me to work for the wisconsin legislature. it has been a unique experience. i have met some of the best friend i have ever had. many of them are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. i cannot think of a better work experience i have had. it fulfills all of my career goals. absolutely, go ahead, go run for office and worked in the legislature. it is truly a privilege to work there. >> i would say the same thing, too. if anybody asks, go ahead and do it. who am i to tell anybody not to do anything? i would question their reasons for wanting to do it and help them out to dispel some of the mets -- myths and rumors.

sometimes it does not work out that way. i would encourage them to run for office. what is your motivation for doing a? does it come from a real place? i would try to -- what is your motivation for doing it? ultimately, they would have to make that decision. >> and i would say they should consider it. it is a dynamic, non- traditional work environment. we get the front seat as state policy is being crafted and history is being made. it is an honor. people do not necessarily realize there is a huge range job -- range of job possibilities in the legislature. jobs like my own, too. there are lots of opportunities for different types of people.

>> thank you. i will play the devil's advocate. it is what i do. if somebody i really cared about was asking whether not they should run for public office -- if you have ever read jim bak er's book, the title is study, work hard, stay out of politics. if it was somebody i really cared about, i would give them that advice first. in the environment we are in, eat -- it can occupy everything about your life. if you are not prepared for it or if your life is in a situation with the people around you -- it can actually take its toll. professionally and personally, i would seriously give that advice. at the end of the day, you have to have good people run for office. there are some people who are good for it and some people who

are good at. without good people, you don't get good policy. >> a lot it is helpful advice. a lot of people who get elected say similar comments, a wide range. john, why don't we stick with teeth with this next question. everyone on this panel and everyone who runs for office at a young age and service in a state legislature wants to give back. you are giving back to the public. what is the most rewarding thing about your job in the legislature? >> it is part of giving back. but i first got elected, a reporter told me the state government -- when i first got elected, a reporter told me the state government was like a big rock. it is the place where you feel like you make the most impact,

working with constituents. i get calls regularly. we do not have a staff in arkansas. we are very limited. it is pretty low pay. i take all my calls directly. they call my cell phone number. i get calls every week from people needing help. sometimes it is permit applications or trouble with workforce services or problems that anyone serving in politics tries to deal with, disability termination, a disability -- this ability termination -- disability determination. now that i have been in our four years and i go to events in my district, almost everything i go to somebody comes up and says,

thanks for helping my daughter on her scholarship application. that is rewarding. >> for me, what i found most rewarding was being part of something bigger. as i mentioned before, i enjoyed working for the legislature and all of the moving changing parts. there are a lot of constance, the rules and parliamentary procedures. the-constants -- constants, loews and parliamentary procedures. i have the house and senate rules -- constants, rules and parliamentary procedures. they have been there and watched the state celebrate achievement and worked through obstacles. now my name is going to be in one of those books.

i play a small role. i help run the voting board. they are relatively small things. it is my role and i am really privileged to have had it. >> if you talk to any normal staffer, they will tell you it is not be paid. i to a new in think that the people who work in the illinois capital have a love for what they do. as a staffer, we are working for legislators who are trying to do what they think is best to move our state forward. that is gratifying. i say it takes a special type of individual to be there under the circumstances, to really perform well.

with performing well, that is the rewarding part, that you are really trying to set yourself on a path to overcome these obstacles. everybody has financial challenges. everybody is dealing with pension issues. these guys you are working with and for are really trying to put their best foot forward and you are part of helping them do that. you have a lasting impact on policy that is going to be in the books for years to come. it is a special thing to be part of. >> as a staffer, it is my job to help my bosses moved their policy agenda forward. it is also my job to make sure the constituents are being helped. when i worked with one senator, he had been in the legislature or 30 years. this intimate contact you and

ask you to contact an agency. i once spent 18 months working on a constituent case from start to finish. the senator was relentless in try to do everything to help this constituent who was having an issue with her natural resources department. we worked with him, we drafted legislation. it went to the a.g. the constituent would always call and i would say, i am so sorry this is taking so long. he said, thank you for what you are doing and for what the senator is doing. that felt tremendously great to be able to -- at the end of the day, we were successful and we were able to help them -- help him. that was my way of giving back. >> number 1 on that list would be the constituent service part of it.

when someone calls with an issue where, you know it is right, but they may be having a problem with one of the departments in the state. i can make a phone call and talk to people and the issue is handled. it is a good feeling. another thing is being in the minority, which the democrats are in the missouri house. it is a small victory when you can get an amendment had it that you care about that can really benefit your people and hopefully this bill will become law. you have enough votes and you get an amendment added, that is a good feeling and you know you will probably never passed any legislation -- [laughter] unless i sell my soul, which is not for sale. people ask you to come speak at different events. clem builds airplanes as his day

job. i may not be able to get there. i talk to youngsters who are on their way too high school, hopefully, to get to college. i was able to sit in front of them and give them information. that was because of the job or the position as the representative that i have. it is not all bad that you hear on some of the news outlets. it is those moments where you have a chance to connect with the community. you have something to say positive and it might be able to help them. >> just speaking of what you were talking about, getting amendments added, one of your colleagues in the democratic caucus in missouri was proud of an amendment he got past three times to ban the university of kansas logo from the missouri state license plates, which had been signed by governor nixon.

the huffington post takes no side. i want to make sure that is clarified. this is a point of personal privilege. i agree with all of you. helping people is my worst -- my most rewarding thing i can do as a journalist. one last question before we throw it out to the audience. it is interesting for those in this room and those watching on c-span and those in politics and outside of politics. i spent two years recently doing volunteer work force searching for work group sponsored by the presbyterian church in new jersey. one thing that came out -- this was a group of people who are searching for work. it is a wide age range and demographic and it is open to the entire community.

networking is something you hear talk about a lot. in government, networking is important. you have any suggestions for networking, breaking the ice? you have any stories about your own networking experience to get you where you are today and any other advice? clim, do you want -- clem, do you want to start? >> networking is an important piece in getting elected. a lot of the knowledge i have acquired has come because of networking, not necessarily i do a lot of traveling all over the state of missouri talking to different people. ultimately, the bills we pass our that i support or do not support will affect somebody in

the state. i live in an urban area and there may be a bill that comes out and i have no idea what it is going to do to an industry. i go down and talk to farmers and people in cattle industry. i can see the impact of my vote in the capital of missouri. another story i have is, i was elected to the dnc as an at large delegate at our statewide convention. it happened in a strange way. you have delegates from all over the state of missouri. normally, you would never have seen them at this meeting. they had to vote on who the delegates would be. i had traveled the route is state.

i can over resources. that never would have -- fighting over resources. that never would have happened because i got outside the box to talk to people that, historically, you would not talk to. network it -- networking is key. it can point you in the right direction. i do a lot of conferences. it is meeting different people, getting different policy ideas. something may be working in georgia. we can bring it to missouri and i would not know this if i did not network with those individuals. >> i do not think i would be on

this stage if it was not for networking. when i worked on campaigns in high school and college, those people became lifelong friends. i am where i am today because of them. there is no doubt in my mind. when you are a young staffer and you are not quite sure who to speak to, these people pointed me in the right direction and gave me advice such as gold joined the softball team or the volleyball team or, if you want to go out for a beverage -- go join the softball team or the volleyball team or if you want to go out for a beverage. those things lead from one connection to the next in the next. you never stop networking. just because you get the job doesn't mean you can stop networking. you have to keep going. i have made a lot of connections through my bosses as well.

that has opened up so many doors. the most important thing that young staffers should do and continue to follow is to develop their tenure in the legislature. >> networking is super important. for me personally, some of my best friends are in the legislature. they have come from work experience. networking is super important when you start talking about being really good at your job. you need to have information from others. stay on top of your game does not involve you. it involves the people around you. keeping those relationships and building those relationships is important to your own success and to the people around you. i also had an experience just

five minutes ago -- five minutes before we started. a gentleman came up to me and asked me for my business card, which i do not have. make sure you can read those with you always. a good piece of advice. -- make sure you carry those which you always. >> i find networking to be difficult. in alaska, we have a lot of legislators who come down to juno and they are away from their friends and family. there are a lot of fun activities to give people something to do. the also serve as networking activities. we have a bowling league. there are various ways to get involved. also, in the last few years, i have gotten involved in a group composed of other secretaries from the other 50 states. that has been really fun and rewarding.

we play unique roles in the legislature. sometimes, it is difficult to talk about our with jobs with other people who do not work for the legislature. there is a a little bit of history that surrounds it. it has been reached -- there is a little bit of history that surrounds it. when we are back in our state and we think of implementing a new process that we knew of the state has undergone, because of that networking, we can contact them and get some helpful input. i see lots of reasons to keep doing it. >> i am at the end. i have said this five times now. i agree with everything they have said. i get made fun of sometimes because i get called an old soul. the point is, we all agree that never is -- networking is important. everything that has been said is true.

as far as networking goes, there are receptions where everybody wants to be the next karl rove and rahm emanuel. there is plenty of that stuff to go to. i am a firm believer that if you do the job nobody else wants to do, you will probably have opportunities nobody else will have. when i was trying to get somebody to go meet with the staff on trust and balances, everybody was busy. when we were having dinner, everybody was free. it is easy to get a group for dinner, but it is hard to get a group to study budgets. go and shake hands and meet the people you need to meet. at the end of the day, knowing that our hard work and our talent will give us

opportunities more than standing around talking about how great we are. >> as a kid growing up, it was opening up to people. when you talk about networking, there is always, you will have to go up to somebody and there will have to be some discussion. some people are terrified of that. some people in this room probably. it is something that has to happen. you talk every day to people. it is a conversation with someone you have not met before. i used to go to these conferences. the groups i would be with with the to these compasses and be with each other all the time. sit next to it -- i would go to these conferences and be with people all the time. set next to somebody you do not know. you have a common interest with the conversation can start. that is where a lot of my networking has happened. we start to talk and weeks some

similarities together and you have a connection. -- weave some similarities together and you have a connection. the greeting can blossom into something good. >> definitely true. i served on the board of the university club of new york. we have our all member receptions once a year. i tell the colleagues on the board, do not talk to me. i think that is true. what everyone said is true for networking. but we will open it up -- >> we will open it up if anybody has any questions. there is a microphone. into do-it-yourself. start with your -- introduce yourself.

start with your name and your position. >> i am a first term member from the arkansas house. this is for john and clem. i am curious about what kind strategy's you used to work on legislation -- strategies you used to work on legislation. >> here is an example of missouri. we have 163 state representatives. when i came in, we had more new republicans, in that we had in our democratic -- new republic is come in then we had in our democratic caucus. we had to be -- we had more new republicans come in that we had in our democratic caucus. there are some issues where you

may get some fracturing with the republican party. we can stop some stuff from happening or get an amendment added. legislation right now is a bit of a challenge unless you sell your soul, which nobody wants to do. it is a difficult thing. in committees, you can get amendments and things of that sort and things alter and language changed so that things are not so bad. i do not know if my caucus -- maybe i missed that meeting -- i do not know what we can do at this point other than get more members to balance the numbers out or to get that bill passed. it becomes difficult sometimes. it is a psychological thing. you get beaten down every day and you can use every vote on the floor. you have got to stay with it. you cannot just give up and say, i will just go to this reception.